Marc Toberoff (State Bar No. 188547) mtoberoff@toberoffandassociates.com Keith G. Adams (State Bar No. 240497) kadams@toberoffandassociates.com Pablo D. Arredondo (State Bar No. 241142) parredondo@toberoffandassociates.com David Harris (State Bar No. 255557) dharris@toberoffandassociates.com TOBEROFF & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 22337 Pacific Coast Highway #348 Malibu, California 90265 Telephone: (310) 246-3333 Fax: (310) 246-3101
Attorneys for Defendants Mark Warren Peary, as personal representative of the Estate of Joseph Shuster, Jean Adele Peavy, and Laura Siegel Larson, individually and as personal representative of the Estate of Joanne Siegel
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - WESTERN DIVISION DC COMICS, Plaintiff, vs.
PACIFIC PICTURES CORPORATION; IP WORLDWIDE, LLC; IPW, LLC; MARC TOBEROFF, an individual; MARK WARREN PEARY, as personal representative of the ESTATE OF JOSEPH SHUSTER; JEAN ADELE PEAVY, an individual; LAURA SIEGEL LARSON, individually and as personal representative of the ESTATE OF JOANNE SIEGEL, and DOES 1-10, inclusive,
Defendants. Case No: CV 10-03633 ODW (RZx)
Hon. Otis D. Wright II, U.S.D.J. Hon. Ralph Zarefsky, U.S.M.J.
DECLARATION OF KEITH G. ADAMS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DCS FOURTH, FIFTH, AND SIXTH CLAIMS
Notice of Motion and Motion; Statement of Undisputed Facts and Conclusions of Law; [Proposed] Order and Statement of Decision filed concurrently herewith
Complaint filed: May 14, 2010 Discovery Cutoff: None Set Trial Date: None Set
Date: March 11, 2013 Time: 1:30 p.m. Place: Courtroom 11
Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578 Filed 02/05/13 Page 1 of 9 Page ID #:37330
i INDEX TO DECLARATION OF KEITH G. ADAMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ex. Title Page A October 2, 1992 agreement between DC Comics, Frank Shuster and Jean Peavy 6 B October 19, 2001 letter from Kevin Marks to John Schulman 7 C October 26, 2001 letter from Schulman to Marks 13 D November 28, 2001 agreement between Pacific Pictures Corporation, Jean Peavy and Mark Warren Peary 21 E February 1, 2002 letter from Patrick Perkins to Marks 25 F May 9, 2002 letter from Joanne Siegel to Richard D. Parsons 82 G February 12, 2002 agreement between Pacific Pictures Corporation and Ariel Emanuel 85
H September 21, 2002 letter from Joanne Siegel and Laura Siegel Larson to Marks and Bruce Ramer 92
I October 23, 2002 agreement between IP Worldwide, Joanne Siegel and Laura Siegel Larson 93 J October 7, 2003 order admitting will to probate 97 K October 30, 2003 agreement between Pacific Pictures Corporation, and Mark Warren Peary, as executor of the estate of Joseph Shuster, and Jean Peavy 102
L Letter sent from Ariel Emanuel to Bruce Rosenblum 106 M March 12, 2004 Certificate of Recordation 107 N April 12, 2004 agreement between IP Worldwide, Joanne Siegel and Laura Siegel Larson 123 O September 10, 2004 letter from Marc Toberoff to Mark Warren Peary and Jean Peavy 124 P November 23, 2001 agreement between Marc Toberoff, Mark Warren Peary and Jean Peavy 125 Q October 3, 2004 agreement between Marc Toberoff, Joanne Siegel 129 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578 Filed 02/05/13 Page 2 of 9 Page ID #:37331
ii INDEX TO DECLARATION OF KEITH G. ADAMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 and Laura Siegel Larson R Anonymous document entitled SUPERMAN MARC TOBEROFF TIMELINE 135 S Excerpts from the October 7, 2006 deposition of Kevin Marks in Siegel 142 T Excerpts from the November 2, 2006 deposition of Ariel Emanuel in in Siegel 154 U Excerpts from the November 11, 2006 deposition of Mark Warren Peary in Siegel 168 V November 15, 2006 letter from Alexander Merino to Adam Hagen 200 W Excerpts from the November 17, 2006 deposition of Marc Toberoff in Siegel 201 X March 26, 2007 Declaration Of Wayne M. Smith in Siegel 277 Y May 29, 2007 Opposition To Plaintiffs Motion For Partial Summary Judgment in Siegel 285 Z September 25, 2007 Declaration Of Michael Bergman in Siegel 381 AA Second Amended Counterclaims, filed in Siegel, dated February 17, 2011 400 BB Defendants Request For Judicial Notice In Support Of Consolidated Motion And Motion To Dismiss Pursuant To Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), filed in this case at docket entry 333-1 on October 14, 2011 438 CC DC Comics Response To Defendants Request For Judicial Notice In Support Of Consolidated Motion To Dismiss Pursuant To Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), filed in this case at docket entry 335 on October 24, 2011 448 DD Mediation Questionnaire filed in connection with Ninth Circuit 452 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578 Filed 02/05/13 Page 3 of 9 Page ID #:37332
iii INDEX TO DECLARATION OF KEITH G. ADAMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case Number 11-56934, dated November 9, 2011 EE Defendant Marc Toberoffs Response To Plaintiff DC Comics Second Set Of Interrogatories, dated February 23, 2012 457 FF Excerpts from the September 18, 2012 deposition of Marc Toberoff in this case 467
Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578 Filed 02/05/13 Page 4 of 9 Page ID #:37333
1 DECLARATION OF KEITH G. ADAMS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DCS FOURTH, FIFTH, AND SIXTH CLAIMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF KEITH G. ADAMS I, Keith G. Adams, declare as follows: 1. I am an attorney at the law firm of Toberoff & Associates, P.C., counsel of record for defendants Mark Warren Peary, as personal representative of the Estate of Joseph Shuster, Jean Adele Peavy, and Laura Siegel Larson, individually and as personal representative of the Estate of Joanne Siegel, in the above-captioned action, and submit this declaration in support of Defendants Motion For Partial Summary Judgment On DCs Fourth, Fifth, And Sixth Claims. 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of an agreement between DC Comics, on the one hand, and Frank Shuster and Jean Peavy, on the other, signed as of October 2, 1992. 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of a letter sent by Kevin Marks to John Schulman, dated October 19, 2001. 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of a letter sent by John Schulman to Kevin Marks, dated October 26, 2001. 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of an agreement between Pacific Pictures Corporation, on the one hand, and Jean Peavy and Mark Warren Peary, on the other, signed as of November 28, 2001. 6. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of a letter sent by Patrick Perkins to Kevin Marks, dated February 1, 2002. 7. Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of a letter sent by Joanne Siegel to Richard D. Parsons, dated May 9, 2002. 8. Attached hereto as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of an agreement between Pacific Pictures Corporation, on the one hand, and Ariel Emanuel, on the other, signed as of February 12, 2002. 9. Attached hereto as Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of a letter sent by Joanne Siegel and Laura Siegel Larson to Kevin Marks and Bruce Ramer, dated September 21, 2002. Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578 Filed 02/05/13 Page 5 of 9 Page ID #:37334
2 DECLARATION OF KEITH G. ADAMS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DCS FOURTH, FIFTH, AND SIXTH CLAIMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10. Attached hereto as Exhibit I is a true and correct copy of an agreement between IP Worldwide, on the one hand, and Joanne Siegel and Laura Siegel Larson, on the other, signed as of October 23, 2002. 11. Attached hereto as Exhibit J is a true and correct copy of an Order Admitting Will To Probate, Appointing Executor And Authorizing Independent Administration of Estate With Limited Authority, issued on October 7, 2003. 12. Attached hereto as Exhibit K is a true and correct copy of an agreement between Pacific Pictures Corporation, on the one hand, and Mark Warren Peary, as executor of the estate of Joseph Shuster, on the other, signed as of October 30, 2003. 13. Attached hereto as Exhibit L is a true and correct copy of a letter sent by Ariel Emanuel to Bruce Rosenblum. 14. Attached hereto as Exhibit M is a true and correct copy of a Certificate of Recordation, dated March 12, 2004. 15. Attached hereto as Exhibit N is a true and correct copy of an agreement between IP Worldwide, LLC, on the one hand, and Joanne Siegel and Laura Sigel Larson, on the other, signed as of April 12, 2004. 16. Attached hereto as Exhibit O is a true and correct copy of an agreement between Pacific Pictures Corporation, on the one hand, and Mark Warren Peary, individually and as the executor of Joseph Shusters estate, and Jean Peavy, on the other, dated September 10, 2004. 17. Attached hereto as Exhibit P is a true and correct copy of an agreement between Marc Toberoff, on the one hand, and Mark Warren Peary, individually and as executor of Joseph Shusters estate, and Jean Peavy, on the other, dated as of November 23, 2001. 18. Attached hereto as Exhibit Q is a true and correct copy of an agreement between Marc Toberoff, on the one hand, and Joanne Siegel and Laura Siegel Larson, on the other, signed as of October 3, 2004. Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578 Filed 02/05/13 Page 6 of 9 Page ID #:37335
3 DECLARATION OF KEITH G. ADAMS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DCS FOURTH, FIFTH, AND SIXTH CLAIMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 19. Attached hereto as Exhibit R is a true and correct copy of a document entitled SUPERMAN MARC TOBEROFF TIMELINE, anonymously sent to executives at Warner Bros. sometime between 2005 and 2006. 20. Attached hereto as Exhibit S is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the transcript of the October 7, 2006 deposition of Kevin Marks in Siegel v. Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc., 04-CV-8400 ODW (RZx) (Siegel). 21. Attached hereto as Exhibit T is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the transcript of the November 2, 2006 deposition of Ariel Emanuel in Siegel. 22. Attached hereto as Exhibit U is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the transcript of the November 11, 2006 deposition of Mark Warren Peary in Siegel. 23. Attached hereto as Exhibit V is a true and correct copy of a letter sent by Alexander Merino to Adam Hagen, dated November 15, 2006. 24. Attached hereto as Exhibit W is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the transcript of the November 17, 2006 deposition of Marc Toberoff in Siegel. 25. Attached hereto as Exhibit X is a true and correct copy of the Declaration Of Wayne M. Smith In Support Defendants Motion To Compel Production Of Whistle-Blower Documents, filed in Siegel, dated March 26, 2007. 26. Attached hereto as Exhibit Y is a true and correct copy of Defendants Opposition To Plaintiffs Motion For Partial Summary Judgment And Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Thereof, filed in Siegel. 27. Attached hereto as Exhibit Z is a true and correct copy of the Declaration Of Michael Bergman In Response To The Declaration Of Marc Toberoff Filed Pursuant To The Courts September 17, 2007 Order, filed in Siegel dated September 25, 2007. 28. Attached hereto as Exhibit AA is a true and correct copy of the Second Amended Counterclaims, filed in Siegel, dated February 17, 2011. 29. Attached hereto as Exhibit BB is a true and correct copy of Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578 Filed 02/05/13 Page 7 of 9 Page ID #:37336
4 DECLARATION OF KEITH G. ADAMS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DCS FOURTH, FIFTH, AND SIXTH CLAIMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Defendants Request For Judicial Notice In Support Of Consolidated Motion And Motion To Dismiss Pursuant To Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), filed in this case as docket entry 333-1 on October 14, 2011. 30. Attached hereto as Exhibit CC is a true and correct copy of DC Comics Response To Defendants Request For Judicial Notice In Support Of Consolidated Motion To Dismiss Pursuant To Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), filed in this case as docket entry 335 on October 24, 2011. 31. Attached hereto as Exhibit DD is a true and correct copy of the Mediation Questionnaire filed in connection with Ninth Circuit Case Number 11- 56934, dated November 9, 2011. 32. Attached hereto as Exhibit EE is a true and correct copy of Defendant Marc Toberoffs Responses To Plaintiff DC Comics Second Set Of Interrogatories, dated February 23, 2012. 33. Attached hereto as Exhibit FF is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the transcripts of the September 18, 2012 deposition of Marc Toberoff in this case. /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578 Filed 02/05/13 Page 8 of 9 Page ID #:37337
5 DECLARATION OF KEITH G. ADAMS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DCS FOURTH, FIFTH, AND SIXTH CLAIMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on February 4, 2013, at Malibu, California.
Keith G. Adams
Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578 Filed 02/05/13 Page 9 of 9 Page ID #:37338 EXHIBIT A 6 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 1 of 101 Page ID #:37339 EXHIBIT B 7 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 2 of 101 Page ID #:37340 EXHIBIT B 8 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 3 of 101 Page ID #:37341 EXHIBIT B 9 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 4 of 101 Page ID #:37342 EXHIBIT B 10 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 5 of 101 Page ID #:37343 EXHIBIT B 11 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 6 of 101 Page ID #:37344 EXHIBIT B 12 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 7 of 101 Page ID #:37345 EXHIBIT C 13 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 8 of 101 Page ID #:37346 EXHIBIT C 14 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 9 of 101 Page ID #:37347 EXHIBIT C 15 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 10 of 101 Page ID #:37348 EXHIBIT C 16 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 11 of 101 Page ID #:37349 EXHIBIT C 17 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 12 of 101 Page ID #:37350 EXHIBIT C 18 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 13 of 101 Page ID #:37351 EXHIBIT C 19 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 14 of 101 Page ID #:37352 EXHIBIT C 20 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 15 of 101 Page ID #:37353 EXHIBIT D 21 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 16 of 101 Page ID #:37354 EXHIBIT D 22 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 17 of 101 Page ID #:37355 EXHIBIT D 23 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 18 of 101 Page ID #:37356 EXHIBIT D 24 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 19 of 101 Page ID #:37357 EXHIBIT E 25 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 20 of 101 Page ID #:37358 EXHIBIT E 26 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 21 of 101 Page ID #:37359 EXHIBIT E 27 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 22 of 101 Page ID #:37360 EXHIBIT E 28 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 23 of 101 Page ID #:37361 EXHIBIT E 29 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 24 of 101 Page ID #:37362 EXHIBIT E 30 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 25 of 101 Page ID #:37363 EXHIBIT E 31 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 26 of 101 Page ID #:37364 EXHIBIT E 32 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 27 of 101 Page ID #:37365 EXHIBIT E 33 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 28 of 101 Page ID #:37366 EXHIBIT E 34 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 29 of 101 Page ID #:37367 EXHIBIT E 35 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 30 of 101 Page ID #:37368 EXHIBIT E 36 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 31 of 101 Page ID #:37369 EXHIBIT E 37 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 32 of 101 Page ID #:37370 EXHIBIT E 38 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 33 of 101 Page ID #:37371 EXHIBIT E 39 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 34 of 101 Page ID #:37372 EXHIBIT E 40 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 35 of 101 Page ID #:37373 EXHIBIT E 41 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 36 of 101 Page ID #:37374 EXHIBIT E 42 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 37 of 101 Page ID #:37375 EXHIBIT E 43 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 38 of 101 Page ID #:37376 EXHIBIT E 44 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 39 of 101 Page ID #:37377 EXHIBIT E 45 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 40 of 101 Page ID #:37378 EXHIBIT E 46 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 41 of 101 Page ID #:37379 EXHIBIT E 47 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 42 of 101 Page ID #:37380 EXHIBIT E 48 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 43 of 101 Page ID #:37381 EXHIBIT E 49 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 44 of 101 Page ID #:37382 EXHIBIT E 50 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 45 of 101 Page ID #:37383 EXHIBIT E 51 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 46 of 101 Page ID #:37384 EXHIBIT E 52 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 47 of 101 Page ID #:37385 EXHIBIT E 53 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 48 of 101 Page ID #:37386 EXHIBIT E 54 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 49 of 101 Page ID #:37387 EXHIBIT E 55 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 50 of 101 Page ID #:37388 EXHIBIT E 56 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 51 of 101 Page ID #:37389 EXHIBIT E 57 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 52 of 101 Page ID #:37390 EXHIBIT E 58 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 53 of 101 Page ID #:37391 EXHIBIT E 59 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 54 of 101 Page ID #:37392 EXHIBIT E 60 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 55 of 101 Page ID #:37393 EXHIBIT E 61 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 56 of 101 Page ID #:37394 EXHIBIT E 62 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 57 of 101 Page ID #:37395 EXHIBIT E 63 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 58 of 101 Page ID #:37396 EXHIBIT E 64 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 59 of 101 Page ID #:37397 EXHIBIT E 65 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 60 of 101 Page ID #:37398 EXHIBIT E 66 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 61 of 101 Page ID #:37399 EXHIBIT E 67 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 62 of 101 Page ID #:37400 EXHIBIT E 68 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 63 of 101 Page ID #:37401 EXHIBIT E 69 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 64 of 101 Page ID #:37402 EXHIBIT E 70 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 65 of 101 Page ID #:37403 EXHIBIT E 71 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 66 of 101 Page ID #:37404 EXHIBIT E 72 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 67 of 101 Page ID #:37405 EXHIBIT E 73 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 68 of 101 Page ID #:37406 EXHIBIT E 74 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 69 of 101 Page ID #:37407 EXHIBIT E 75 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 70 of 101 Page ID #:37408 EXHIBIT E 76 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 71 of 101 Page ID #:37409 EXHIBIT E 77 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 72 of 101 Page ID #:37410 EXHIBIT E 78 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 73 of 101 Page ID #:37411 EXHIBIT E 79 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 74 of 101 Page ID #:37412 EXHIBIT E 80 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 75 of 101 Page ID #:37413 EXHIBIT E 81 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 76 of 101 Page ID #:37414 EXHIBIT F 82 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 77 of 101 Page ID #:37415 EXHIBIT F 83 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 78 of 101 Page ID #:37416 EXHIBIT F 84 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 79 of 101 Page ID #:37417 ! j Jul l -up:uf uA..tsPxl ft U| !- 1-_5Bz P.001/00? F_tD0 T-- i'f-g rt of ***L f pwqrl dwi de i 7-* F U gsgsWilshire Blvd., Suile 811 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Tel: (810)246-3100; Fax (310) 24sS101 FACSIMILE COVERPAGE COMMEIYIS! Aftached as. requesed is aa execured eopy of the sgreemenr dated February z:, zaoz betweed Ariel Emanuel and paeific pisturcs Corp. regarding ip Worldwidl, U,C. - TIIE INFORTV'ATTON COI{TAINED IN TIIIII TRA}{SMISSION IS b,MENDED ONLY FOR USE OF TI{E rNDrvlDuALoRENflTYJovnncunnallnrssroeNollavcor.lreurINFoRMATIoNTT{ATis pRrvrrsgED. coNFrDENTrALaNosxgMpirnouoGiiosunn-ulrnffiApprJcABrsr.Aw.FTHE READER oP THIS rr(ANsMIssIoN rs Not rns-rNTer.rD;; REc]pdllr, ANr DrssErirrNATroN DISTRIBLIITONoR coPYlNs olFTHIs ColWunn{CaTroN IS STRICTLY?R0HiBIIED.IFyoUIIAvE RECETVED TrIIs comvtancarrounvrnnciniisassNo'irFf us frmirbiemrv By rELEpr{oNE AND RETIJRN THE oRIGNAL rnat rslvGsi.rw- -fo us ar rire ntsow .cDoREss vIA{IiE us posrAl SERVICE. TTIANKYOU. TO: Ariel Z. Emanuel FAXI 31:o-Vl&2033 [ROM: Mare Toberoff PAGES (indudingcover) : 7 DA'I'Ii z 6R107 RE: AE/PPC IPW Agreemint fPEctrrre IJ lil JU$l ? 'nn, r b,nU_ct-r-A \tltil J ?MJ EN0000l EXHIBIT 20 667 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW -RZ Document 305-20 Filed 08/09/11 Page 2 of 8 Page ID #:18622 EXHIBIT G 85 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 80 of 101 Page ID #:37418 JUn-U.+-Us Us;4Jpm rron- T-582 P.002t997 CO[|FIOEl\|TIAL The following sets forth the deat terms of the agreement between Pacifio Pictures Corporation f/Vo Marc Toberoff ('PPg) and Ariel Emanuel fAE') to form a ioint venture ('Newco') to acquire and e>cploit intellectual property rights ("lFp): A. Basic Structure Newco witl be a separate entity (probably a limited liability company f'LLG") whose equity will be owned 50% by P?C; 4A/o by AE, .1O "/" by Endeavor' B. Contributions to Newco. 1. Frbm PPG: (a) PPCs cunent lP business (subject to pre-existing commitments and exclusions per Appendk olu and 1lD below) (b) Marc Toberoff.: fMT) exclusive lP services; ' lP legalskills; - lP contacts, precedent and goodwill; Access to extensive lP research (6 years) and lP hit list 2. From AE: (a) Annual Overhead of $ + ppi) plus 8N00002 EXHIBIT 20 668 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW -RZ Document 305-20 Filed 08/09/11 Page 3 of 8 Page ID #:18623 EXHIBIT G 86 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 81 of 101 Page ID #:37419 Jun-04:03 0Z:43pll Frotn- T-5BZ P.003/007 F-8t0 CO[lFIDEl\lIIAL ' . : C. Annual Allocalion of.Gross Receipts: 1. PPG will be entitfed to the first $ as defered salary for year 1. AE will next recoup his overhead expenditure for year 1 ($ ). Any remaining gross receipts in year 1 will be divided @ sel fqrth.below. In year 2, PPC will then ba entitled to the next $ as deferred salary for year 2. AE will next recoup his overhead expenditure foryear 2 ($ r). To the extent PPQ and AE were not paid their respective 91 million and 9... . . . r in years 1 and 2 respectively, those sums will carry over to subsequent years in the same rgco|pme_nt pnorrty' Following said rocoupmen! Newcogross receipts wiflbe distributed 50% to PPC, 4O"/" lo AE, and i OZ to Endeavor. AII revenues derived loryr Newco lP go through Newco, excludlng commissions on third parly Endeavor clients. lt is the intention of the parties to share fairly in the values generated by transaotions hereunder. lf Newco is entitled to less than 100% of payments for certain lP, yet it is ananged for Endeavor to receive 10% of 100yo oj said lp paymenb, then, in such case, Endeavor wilt nqt also commission Newco's lebs than lfjO'/" lP payment, and the above distribution of Newco gross receipts will be adjusted so that the net effect is that PPC ieceives 50% of the aggregate gross reieipts, AE receives 40"/" and Endeavor 1Ay". 2.' Without obtlgation to spend money, if AE opts to invest additlonat money in Newco to acquire certain lP for a profrt, AE widbe entifled to recoup its investment from gross rgcgipts, plus a 2O%-return; with the balance of grosi receipts distibuted perllC 't above. H AE/Newco doesn't invest in certiin lF aftg s,o days of its introduction to AHNewco, MT wilt befrea to set up said ir outslde of $ew9o after notice to AE. D. PPG's Cunent lP/Allocation of Gross Receipts ' 1. On PPC's pre-existing lP assets (as set forth in Appendix I llA) that are.not set-up; Newco his ne righiro p"rtiiipa:iJ in tne ieuenue stream if AE or Endeavor attaches a key element and/br actiratly seF up the project during the Term asfollows: Newso receives 50% of 1oo%bt ppc ievenu"s from the-lp (excluding Produeerfees); Endeavorin addition receives 10% of MT producer fees and 1O0% of its thhd pariy client commissions. 2: On PPC's_projects that are already set up (as set forth in Appendix I B) 1l Dl above applies if rhe Rights revert or return to PPC by some othei- means (turnaround, expiration o{ option} during the'Term. otherwise, itAE or End;;;; contributes something materialto greenlight a projeet already sot up by MT/eec, 8N00003 EXHIBIT 20 669 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW -RZ Document 305-20 Filed 08/09/11 Page 4 of 8 Page ID #:18624 EXHIBIT G 87 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 82 of 101 Page ID #:37420 JUn-u4:Ut ul ;.lgplll :t sti- 00l.tFI[JEl\lIIAL "" P 0s4ts07 F-868 Newco receives 25T" of 100% of PPC revenues from the lP (excluding Producer fees); Endeavor in addilion receives l0% of MT Producer fees and 100% of its third parly client commissions. 3.' With respect to the legal disputes identified in Appendix I C, if there is an opportunrtyfor AE to contribute services to settle such disputes, MT will negotiate-with AE a reasonable fue to AE, subject to AE's settlement of such disputes. E. MTs Producer fees . Newco will not be acfu'vely engaged in filrn production. MT, personally, will be attached as a Producerto Newco lP and personally receive screen credit and a fee (fxed and contingent) for such services outside of Newco to be negotiated by MT in good faith with the financier/diskibutor of such lP derived ppjecb. Endeavorwill receive'an agenfs commission of 10% of such MT Producer fees. F. AdditionalAE Hight 1. AE has the absolute right to decline to participate in oertain lP in which cas.e any such lP deals are outside Newco and ppG directty receives 1OO% of the lP and producer proceeds, if any. c" term The Term shatl be two years, commensing on or about March t, znaz once this agreement is executed and Newco's offlces and principalstaff are in place, H. Dissolution of the Venture Upgn dissofution, Nerrirco assets acquired during the Term will be own'ed , by the parties in tfre same proportion as their equrty in Newcci as tenants iir commonr and gross receipts from assets acquirbd or assets set up during the I"n wlll continue to be divided and payablaper the terms of this'Agreefrenr Pre-existing PPG assets set forth in Appendii 1 remain owned uy enc unencumbered. I. Dispute Hesolution ln the event gf afv disputes between the parties concerning this agreement, any such dispute will be resolved first by meaningful informed discussions, chaired by a mutually approved mediaior. lf thoJe dlscussions do not result in a resolution the parties witt sribmit any such dispute to binding EN00004 EXHIBIT 20 670 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW -RZ Document 305-20 Filed 08/09/11 Page 5 of 8 Page ID #:18625 EXHIBIT G 88 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 83 of 101 Page ID #:37421 J.un-04-03 02l43pn From- : COI'IFIIJTNIIAL T-582 P OOs/OOT F-'EO expedited arbitration before a single arbitrator familiar with the entertainment business. J. General The parties will in good faith execute Sueh further documrjnts as'are ' necessary or desirable to carry out tha purposes and iffient of this agreernent. The parties contemplate that they wlll enter into a longerform agreement(s) incorponating the lgrms hereof, but until such fime or in the eyent no such longer agreement is executed, this agreement is and will remain binding. . This agreement conh.ins the full undersbndlng of the parties and supersedes all prior or contemporaneous understandings whetherwritten or oral with respect to the subject matter hereof and may not be modified except in writing signed by the party to be bound. The partles acknowledge that they have not slgned this agreemgnt In reliance on any promise or representation not expressly set forth herein. Thls agreement may not be assigned by either parly. This Agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective heirs and executors. Executed facsimile copies of this agreement shall be valid and aoceptable with the same force and effect as executed originals. This agreement shall be consbued and applied pursuant to the laws of the State applicable to agreements rnade and to be performed therein. A AND ACCEPTED: Pacific Pictures lorporation --- -Srzaru--- t Date: 7-// 7/o z- By: Marc Toberoff, President N EXHIBIT 20 671 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW -RZ Document 305-20 Filed 08/09/11 Page 6 of 8 Page ID #:18626 EXHIBIT G 89 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 84 of 101 Page ID #:37422 rrul l -u+:u! ug:4gPi l t rtsi l t- T-5BZ P.006/00r t-880 EN00006 CONFI0Tl\lIIAL Ariel Emanuel - w - Pacific Picilres Corporation . APPENDIX 1 EXHIBIT 20 672 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW -RZ Document 305-20 Filed 08/09/11 Page 7 of 8 Page ID #:18627 EXHIBIT G 90 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 85 of 101 Page ID #:37423 rru[-u+-u! u!;4opg rrqi l - COl'|NNEIITIAL T-5BZ P.007/00t F-860 Ariel Emanuel - w- Pacific Pictures Corporation APPENDIX 1 (Gontinued) C. LegalGlaims/Litigation(inifiatedduetoconfiddntialitg JS Claims Rupecieo 8N00007 EXHIBIT 20 673 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW -RZ Document 305-20 Filed 08/09/11 Page 8 of 8 Page ID #:18628 EXHIBIT G 91 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 86 of 101 Page ID #:37424 EXHIBIT H 92 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 87 of 101 Page ID #:37425 EXHIBIT I 93 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 88 of 101 Page ID #:37426 EXHIBIT I 94 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 89 of 101 Page ID #:37427 EXHIBIT I 95 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 90 of 101 Page ID #:37428 EXHIBIT I 96 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 91 of 101 Page ID #:37429 EXHIBIT B 18 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW -RZ Document 334-8 Filed 10/24/11 Page 2 of 6 Page ID #:22042 EXHIBIT 34 284 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 459-3 Filed 07/16/12 Page 129 of 186 Page ID #:27341 EXHIBIT J 97 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 92 of 101 Page ID #:37430 EXHIBIT B 19 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW -RZ Document 334-8 Filed 10/24/11 Page 3 of 6 Page ID #:22043 EXHIBIT 34 285 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 459-3 Filed 07/16/12 Page 130 of 186 Page ID #:27342 EXHIBIT J 98 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 93 of 101 Page ID #:37431 EXHIBIT B 20 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW -RZ Document 334-8 Filed 10/24/11 Page 4 of 6 Page ID #:22044 EXHIBIT 34 286 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 459-3 Filed 07/16/12 Page 131 of 186 Page ID #:27343 EXHIBIT J 99 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 94 of 101 Page ID #:37432 EXHIBIT B 21 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW -RZ Document 334-8 Filed 10/24/11 Page 5 of 6 Page ID #:22045 EXHIBIT 34 287 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 459-3 Filed 07/16/12 Page 132 of 186 Page ID #:27344 EXHIBIT J 100 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 95 of 101 Page ID #:37433 EXHIBIT B 22 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW -RZ Document 334-8 Filed 10/24/11 Page 6 of 6 Page ID #:22046 EXHIBIT 34 288 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 459-3 Filed 07/16/12 Page 133 of 186 Page ID #:27345 EXHIBIT J 101 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 96 of 101 Page ID #:37434 EXHIBIT K 102 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 97 of 101 Page ID #:37435 EXHIBIT K 103 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 98 of 101 Page ID #:37436 EXHIBIT K 104 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 99 of 101 Page ID #:37437 EXHIBIT K 105 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 100 of 101 Page ID #:37438 EXHIBIT L 106 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 101 of 101 Page ID #:37439 Certificate of Recordation This is to certify that the attached document was recorded in the Copyright Office on the date and in the place shown below. This certificate is issued under the seal of the United States Copyright Office. DATE OP RE CORDAT I ON 8Dec03 VOL UME D OC . NO. VOL UME D OC . N O . ~ e ~ i s t & of Copyrights and Associate Librarian for Copyright Services EXHIBIT M 107 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 1 of 170 Page ID #:37440 Library of Congress U.S. Copyright Office IOI Independence Ave, SE Washington, DC 20559-6000 R E C O R D E D D O C U M E N T S FL- 1OA DATE: March 12, 2004 IP Worldwide 9595 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 811 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 A'ITN: MARC TOBEROFF We have recorded the enclosed document(s) in the official records of the Copyright Office: VOLUME 3505 DOC. NO. 773 -774 The recording fee has been handled as follows: - RECEIVED 8 APPLI ED 8 RE F u N D E D (under separate cover) 8 CHARGED T O YOUR DEPOSI T ACCOUNT $ Sincerely yours, Register of Copyrights EXHIBIT M 108 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 2 of 170 Page ID #:37441 C;>pysigtir 13ffice fees are :l;;.!ksjest to :~iaange. : ~ r i c t ~ ? fees, check i hs Copy ti $i ?n C?iF2ce ;r+&. : i.re ,?: l;:t*,q~;.@8p'~~rjgkt.~p.71/, ~r - ' : i i ~ t 1 7 ~ Cf3f.i:; - rifly.l P'f<:*..e <-.r * C L u , , a . r < , . ". t"OZ:: -;.~T-~~%;;0, - i +- DOCUMENT COVER SHEET For Recardation of Documents UNITED STATES COPYRIGHT OFFICE DATE OF RECORDATION (Assigned by Copyright Of f i i ) eeco mnth Day Year Volume AZZiLiF paw .B. FUNDS RECEIVED , , ~~~; ~m9, ~i ~~- z?%?v~~~: - <S~zFi ~. C-c ::*-:j+! :!FJ?<-zTTl?+.~V-''&% Do not wdte above this line n ~ - w m < L r m H % a w & 2 " i l E I t a m m x ~ ' i F B To the Register of Copyrights: Please record the accompanying original document or copy i t: thereof. I 3 ii FOR OFFICE 1l.WONLY g ~ ~ r T + y f i ' ; & ~ x + ~ ~ ; ~ , ~ ~ ,:7ry~i?Ef;r~~T??.~~~.X~~4.~C~i~iF~,~FJ:if>:ti7."-?.~ I ~ P P - - ~ ~ W S ~ ~ ~ J ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ B ~ S : ~ ~ ~ ~ T Y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ P . ? T T B : ~ ~ ~ ~ J ~ ~ I J W ~ ~ ~ Name of the party or parties to the document spelled as they fl Date of execution andlor appear in the document (List up to the first three) effective date of the ,& accompanying docommt I 2 n 3 m t aav) r year) T i = Uarnnr T n r - e~ -saazimmmm.z-r~mr,~~~.'~~iimmmm+zxsia , Completeness of document $k E# Document is complete by its own tenns. % @ O Document is not complete. Record "as is." p . ~ 3 A ~ a 7 5 ~ 3 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ & ~ p & a - ~ , n r c % : 2 $ m : % . y . 5 & : q : G ~ :p:;~&a,z~:-,m s&s,%x,, 2 n+:t'. '5:.o-';..xd:;s~,, - c ~r ~~. ~. - . ~; * &~~~~~. ~?~: 42: . :: 'I.-& ykr* ~ . ~ %= ~ r - : - r ; v > ,:s.:: :Fz <.-g . ::~cpx,~:xt,,:.,;, zq. : /@ Description of document CXTennination of Transfer(s) [Section 3041 5 Other Cl. Transfer oi Copyright 0 Shareware c7 R Security Interest 0 Life, Identity, Death Statement [Scrtion 3021 R Change of Name oi Owner 5 Transfer of Mask Works c?am= - PP *. H---?w.wmww*f%'?'?~~< : f'*" Title of first work f*;., as given in the document in document II superman" sx?P - * - - % - + - m P h r f t r * J I P . ~ P Amount of fee @ Fee Q Fee authorized to be charged to : , dcul at ed @; <$ enclosed Copyright Office $ 100 s Check Deposit Account number 0 Money Order I Account name -- i $PC. -. Affirmation*: I hereby affirm to the Copyright Office that the &;&d infomution given on &is form is a true and correct representation %g of the accompanying document. This affirmation will not suffice as a certification of a photocopy signature on the docun~ent (Affirmation must be signed even if you are also signing Space S i r e Certification*: Complete this certification in addition to the Affirma- tic3 if aphotocopy of the o r i w signed document is substituted for a dcament bearing the actuaI signature. NOl E This space may not be wd for an official certification. I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the accompanying document is a true copy of Date IP ~orldwide/Estate of J os e phs hus t ~ ( 31 0 ) 246- 31 00 ( 31 0 ) 246- 31 01 rxlty ~umorncd Agant d m NU~MI Fax Number , I 9!l !n? Dale ,l * R i - z T S f ( i k . . IP Worldwide Nurnber/Straec/A@l -compeu, ap necasgary spacer SF ycur Cover Sheet In S w e 9 1. Trm cOpies d Vr, Documsnl Cover Shed 2. Checlnmrmy oroer payaw lo R w e r R w June 2002-20.000 Web Ra/. June X4X.2 @ Pnntedcn rewl ed p a w US. GOvernmt Pnr~ung m e : aVoo-461-1 l Y ~ . Ml EXHIBIT M 109 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 3 of 170 Page ID #:37442 NOTlCE OF TERMINATION OF TRANSFER COVERING EXTENDED COPYRIGHT RENEWAL TERM OF "SUPERMAN" To: Time Wamer Inc. 75 Rockefeller Plaza - New York, NY 1001 9 Attn: Richard D. Parsons Chief Executive Officer Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P. 75 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 1001 9 Attn: Barry M. Meyer Chairman & C.E.O. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. 4000 Warner Boulevard Burbank, CA 91 522 Attn: John A. Schulman V.P & General Counsel Wamer Bros. Inc. 4000 Warner Boulevard Burbank, CA 91 522 Attn: John A. Schulman V.P. & General Counsel - Warner Communications Inc. do Time Warner, Inc. 75 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 1001 9 Attn: Paul T. Cappuccio E.V.P. & General Counsel Warner Bros. Television 4000 Warner Boulevard Burbank, CA 9 1 522 ,_ Attn: Peter Roth, President Warner Music Group 75 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 1001 9 Attn: Roger Ames Chairman & C.E.O. Warner Bros. Worldwide Consumer Products 4000 Warner Boulevard Burbank, CA 91 522 Attn: Dan Romanelli, President Warner Publisher Services, Inc. 135 W. 50th Street, 7'h Floor New York, NY 10020 Attn: Rich Jacobsen, President Time Warner Book Group, Inc. 1271 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Attn: Laurence J. Kirshbaum, CEO Warner Books, Inc. 1271 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Attn: Laurence J. Kirshbaum, CEO Little, Brown and Company, Inc. 1271 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Attn: Laurence J. Kirshbaum, CEO DC Comics, Inc. 1700 Broadway, 7" Floor New York, NY 1001 9 Attn: Paui Levitz President & Publisher DC Comics, a General Partnership 1700 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, NY 1001 9 Attn: Paul Levitz Executive V.P. & Publisher DC Direct do DC Comics 1700 Broadway, 7" Floor New York, NY 1 001 9 Attn: Paul Levitz, E.V.P. & Publisher EXHIBIT M 110 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 4 of 170 Page ID #:37443 Milton Bradley Co. Division of Hasbro Inc. 433 Shaker Road East Longmeadow, MA 01 028 Attn: David E. Wilson, President Hasbro, Inc. 1 027 Newport Avenue Pawtucket, RI 02861 Attn: Alan Hassenfeld Chief Executive Officer Wildstorm Productions 888 Prospect Street, Suite 240 La Jolla, CA 92037 Attn: Jim Lee Editor & Director Wildstorm Productions C/O DC Comics 1700 Broadway, 7m Floor New York, NY 1001 9 Attn: Paul Levitz President & Publisher Dark Horse Publications 10956 S.E. Main St. Milwaukie, OR 97222 Attn: Michael Richardson President Cantharus Productions, N.V. 8965 Bay Cove Ct. Orlando, FL 3281 9 Attn: llya Salkind Iiya Salkind and Pierre Spengler 12 Chiswick Lane London W4 2JE, England Attn: Albion Gee, Esq. Albion Gee & Co. Ha.llmark Entertainment, Inc. 1325 Avenue of the Americas 21' Floor New York, NY 1001 9 Attn: Robert Halmi, Jr. Chairman Marvel Entertainment Group, Inc. 10 East 40% Street, 9 ' Floor New York, NY 1 001 6 Attn: F, Peter Cuneo President 8 C.E.O. Golden Books Publishing 1540 Broadway New York, NY 10036 Attn: Amy Jarashow Associate Publisher Random House Golden Books for Young Readers . 1540 Broadway New York, NY 10036 Attn: Kate Klimo Vice President & Publisher Random House, Inc. 1 745 Broadway New York, NY 1001 9 Attn: Katherine J. Trager Senior V.P. & General Counsel l n kworks 4320 Delta Lake Dr. Raleigh, NC 276 1 2 Attn: Allan Caplan President & CEO Penguin Group, (USA) Inc. 375 Hudson Street New York, NY 1 001 4 Attn: David Shanks, C.E.O. DK Publishing, Inc. 375 Hudson Street New York, NY 1001 4 Attn: Christopher Davis, Publisher Scholastic, Inc. 557 Broadway New York, NY 1001 2 Attn: Richard Robinson Chairman & CEO EXHIBIT M 111 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 5 of 170 Page ID #:37444 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Section 304(d) of the United States Copyright Act (1 7 U.S.C. 304(d)) and the regulations issued thereunder by the Register of Copyrights, 37 C.F.R. 201.10, the undersigned Mark Warren Peary, being the person entitled to terminate transfers pursuant to said statutory provisions, hereby terminates - the grant of the transfer of renewal copyright(s) (to the extent of author Joseph Shuster's ownership share of the renewal copyright(s)) in and to the copyrighted work(s) entitled "SUPERMANn made in those certain agreements all as identified below, and the undersigned sets forth in connection therewith the following: 1. The names and addresses of the grantees and/or successors in title whose rights are being terminated are as follows: Time Warner Inc., 75 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, NY 1001 9, Attn: Richard D. Parsons, Chief Executive Officer; Time 2 ( c u* Warner Entertainment Company, L.P., 75 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, NY 10019, Attn: u -4 4 W Barry M. Meyer, Chairman & C.E.O.; Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., 4000 Warner * @a Boulevard, Burbank, CA 91 522, Attn: John A. Schulman, V.P. & General Counsel; (D W her Bros. Inc., 4000 Warner Boulevard, Burbank, CA 91522, Attn: John A. Schulman, V.P. & General Counsel; Warner Communications Inc., c/o Time Warner, Inc., 75 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, NY 1001 9, Attn: Paul T. Cappucio, E.V.P. & General Counsel; Warner Bros. Television, 4000 Warner Boulevard, Burbank, CA 91522, Attn: Peter Roth, President; Wamer Music Group, 75 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, NY 10019, Attn: Roger Ames, Chairman & C.E.O.; Wamer Bros. Worldwide Consumer Products, 4000 Warner Boulevard, Burbank, CA 91522, Attn: Dan Romanelli, President; Warner Publisher Services, 135 W. 5om Street, 7m Floor, New York, N.Y. 10020, Attn: Rich Jacobsen, President; Time Warner Book Group, Inc., 1271 Avenue of EXHIBIT M 112 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 6 of 170 Page ID #:37445 the Americas, New York, NY 10020, Attn: Laurence J. Kirshbaum, C.E.O.; Warner Books, Inc., 1271 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10020, Attn: Laurence J. Kirshbaum, C.E.O.; Little, Brown, and Company, 1271 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10020, Attn: Laurence J. Kirshbaurn, C.E.O.; DC Comics Inc., 1700 - Broadway, 7& Floor, New York, NY 1001 9, Attn: Paul Levitz, Executive V.P. & Publisher; DC Comics, A General Partnership, 1700 Broadway, 7' floor, New York, NY 1001 9, Attn: Paul Levitz, Executive V.P. & Publisher; DC Direct, c/o DC Comics, 1700 Broadway, 7m Floor, New York, NY 1001 9, Attn: Paul Levtiz, E.V.P. & Publisher; Milton Bradley Co., Division of Hasbro, Inc., 433 Shaker Road, East Longmeadow, MA 01 028, Attn: David E. Wilson, President; Hasbro, Inc., 1027 Newport Ave., Pawtucket, RI 02861, Attn: Alan Hassenfeld, Chief Executive Officer; Wildstorm Productions, 888 Prospect Street, Suite 240, La Jolla, CA 92037, Attn: Jim Lee, Editor & Director; w 4 V, 0 wl Wildstorm Productions, c/o DC Comics, 1700 Broadway, 7m Floor, New York, NY 3 a 10019, Attn: Paul Levitz, President & Publisher; Dark Horse Publications, 10956 S.E. G Cd Pj Main St., Mitwaukie, OR 97222, Attn: Michael Richardson, President; Cantharus 3 .& Prgductions, N.V., 8965 Bay Cove Ct., Orlando, FL 3281 9, Attn: llya Salkind; llya Salkind and Pierre Spengler, 12 Chiswick Lane, London W4 2JE, England, Attn: Albion Gee, Esq., Albion Gee & Co.; Haflmark Entertainment, Inc., 1325 Avenue of the Americas, 215' Floor, New York, NY 10019, Attn: Robert Halmi, Jr., Chairman; Marvel Entertainment Group, Inc., 10 ~ a s t 4om Street, 9m Floor, New York, NY 1001 6, Attn: F. Peter Cuneo, President & C.E.O.; Golden Books Publishing, 1540 Broadway, New York, NY 10036, Attn: Amy Jarashow, Associate Publisher; Random House Golden Books for Young Readers, 1540 Broadway, New York, NY 10036, Attn: Kate Kilmo, Vice President & Publisher; , Random . House, Inc., 1745 Broadway, New York, NY EXHIBIT M 113 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 7 of 170 Page ID #:37446 10019, Attn: Katherine J. Trager, Senior V.P. & General Counsel; Inkworks, 4320 Delta Lake Drive, Raleigh, NC 2761 2, Attn: Allan Caplan, President & C.E.O.; Penguin Group (USA) Inc., 375 Hudson Street, New York, NY 10014, Attn: David Shanks, C.E.O.; DK Publishing, Inc., 375 Hudson Street, New York, NY 1001 4, Attn: Christopher Davis, Publisher; Scholastic, Inc., 557 Broadway, New York, NY 1001 2, Attn: Richard Robinson, Chairman & C.E.0. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. Section 201.10(d), service of this notice is being made by first class mail, and additionally sarvice of this notice is being made by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the above grantees or successors at the addresses shown. 2. The works (individually, "Work;" collectively, the "Works") to which this Notice of Termination applies are as follows': The title of the original copyrighted Work 2 ul 0 ul to which this Notice of Termination applies is SUPERMAN,.an illustrated comic book u 4 4 &.j story constituting a front cover and pages 1-1 3, inclusive, in the body of Action Comics, +d P, Vol. 1, No, 1, June, 1938 issue, which was published on April 18, 1938. This Work was % registered for copyright under registration No. 8379787 and copyright was originally ' This Notice of Termination applies as well to each and every element of each Work, including without limitation, the story or stories, character or characters, the interplay of such characters, theme or themes, settings or*focales, and includes, but is not limited to, Superman, his origins and escape as an infant to Earth in a rocket ship, his super strength, his invulnerability (bullets bounce off his chest and he's impervious to fire), his super speed, his ability to leap great distances in a single bound, his telescopic vision, his super hearing and sense of smell, his sense of humor, his clean-cut good looks, his high morals, ethics and compassion, his mission as a crime fighter and as a champion of the underdog, his stylized costume and cape, the diamond shaped "S" insignia on his chest, his secret identity / alter ego as the mild mannered bespectacled newspaper reporter, Clark Kent, the feisty and attractive female reporter love interest, Lois Lane, the love triangle between Supeman, Lois Lane and Clark Kent, Clark Kent's boss / newspaper Editor (a.k.a. Peny White), the Daily Planet newspaper (f.k.a. the Daily Star) whete Clark Kent, Lois Lane and the Editor work, the great skyscraper metropolis where these characters live (a.k.a. Metropolis), Superman's scientist father (a.k.a. Jor L) and Superman's birthplace --a highfy advanced but doomed distant planet (a.k.a. Krypton). EXHIBIT M 114 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 8 of 170 Page ID #:37447 secured in this Work as of its April 18, 1938 publication date. This Work was v~ritien by derome Siegel and illustrated by Joseph Shuster. Renewal of the copyright in and to this Work was made on June 1, 1965, in the name of National Periodical Publications, Inc, claiming as proprietor of copyright, under renewal registration No. R362188. This Work was based upon, incorporated, and constituted a slightly revised version of, the following Works to which this Notice of Termination also applies: twenty-four days (i.e., four six day weeks) of previously unpublished SUPERMAN newspaper comic strips, created c. 1934, written by Jerome Siegel and illustrated by Joseph ~hus t er . ~ The remaining Works to which this Notice of Termination applies are: 4 Title W - Name of Author Date Copvright Secured Copvriqht Req. No. V1 o V, SUPERMAN story Jerome Siegel Work created c.1933 N/ A~ u d in comic book form Joseph Shuster w 4 * In Sieael and Shuster v. National Comics Pub., Inc. et al., the court found that Jemme Siegel ~1 and Joseph Shuster were "the originators and authors of the cartoon character Superman and of the title Superman and first created cartoon material in which said character and title first , appeared in 1934 ...," and further found that this material as incorporated in Action Comics No. 1 constituted: "the formula for the continuing SUPERMAN series to come. It depicted and narrated the origin of the character SUPERMAN, and contained a complete delineaon of the pictbrial representation of SUPERMAN, of his habits and character, of the superhuman powers and attributes with which SUPERMAN was endowed and of the sphere of public good which SUPERMAN exploits were to enhance." Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law by Referee J. Addison Young, fly 8,22 (November 1, 1947); See also Sieqel and Shuster v. National Comics Pub., Inc. et al., Opinion of Referee J. Addison Young, page 9 ("[he aforementioned material] certainly contained the full delineation of the character Superman and though the story or continurty might vary in the future from time to time, it did, I believe constitute a formula for the continuing series to come..."). In Sieael v. National Periodical Publications. Inc, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's determination that Action Comics No. 1 was a work-for-hire and held: "Superman and his miraculous powers were completely developed long before the employment relationship was instituted. The record indicates that the revisions directed by the defendants were simply to accomodate Superman to a magazine format." 508 F.2d 909, 91 4 (2"d Circuit 1974). The second and third Works listed in this table as well as the above-referenced 24 days of previously unpublished SUPERMAN newspaper comic strips were first published in a somewhat revised form on April 18, 1938 as Action Comics, Vol. I , No. 1, June, 1938, which was registered for copyright under registration No. 0379787 and renewed under registration No. R362188. EXHIBIT M 115 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 9 of 170 Page ID #:37448 Title - 15 SUPERMAN daity comic strips (1 2 strips and 3 scripts) Action Comics #2 Action Comics #3 Action Comics #4 Action Comics #5 Action Comics # 6 Action Comics # 7 Name of Author Date Copvriaht Secured Copvriqht Reg. No. Jerome Siegei Work created c.! 334 NIA Joseph Shuster Jerome Siegel May 25, 1938 B379788 Joseph Shuster Jerome Siegel June 25, 1938 B385466 Joseph Shuster Jerome Siegel July 25, 1 938 B387907 Joseph Shuster Jerome Siegel August 25, 1938 8394784 Joseph Shuster Jerome Siegel September 26, 1938 B394866 Joseph Shuster Jerome Siegel October 25, 1938 B3992 14 Joseph Shuster 3. This Notice of Terrnination applies to the following grants, assignments, transfers and/or agreements to the extent each grants, transfers or assigns the renewal I copyright (or any interest in or to the renewal copyright) to any Work identified hereinabove: (a) A one page agreement between Detective Comics, Inc., on the one hand and Jerome Siegel and Joe Shuster, co-authors of the comic book/strip SUPERMAN, on the other, executed on or about March 1, 1938; - Action Comics Nos. 2-6 were reprinted in Superman Nos. 1 and 3 (Copyright Reg. Nos. AA299871 and 8443035, respectively) to which this Notice of Termination, therefore, also applies. EXHIBIT M 116 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 10 of 170 Page ID #:37449 (b) A two page agreement of purported employment between Detective Comics, Inc., on the one hand, and Jerome Siegel and Joe Shuster, co-authors of the comic booklstrip SUPERMAN, on the other, executed on or about December 4, 1937; (c) A three page letter agreement between Detective Comics, Inc., on - the one hand, and Jerome Siegel and Joseph Shuster, co-authors of the comic boowstrip SUPERMAN, on the other, executed on or about September 22, 1938; (d) A three page letter agreement between Detective Comics, Inc. and The McClure Newspaper Syndicate, on the one hand, and Jerome Siegel and Joseph Shuster, co-authors of the comic booWstrip SUPERMAN, on the other, executed on or about September 22, 1938; (e) A two page letter agreement between Detective Comics, Inc., on the one hand, and Jerome Siegel and Joseph Shuster, co-authors of the comic boowstrip SUPERMAN, on the other, executed on or abou: December 19,1939; u 4 W (9 A seven page agreement or stipulation between National Comics Cb 8 Publications, Inc., Independent News Co., Inc., The McClure Newspaper Syndicate, (I, m H $ ~ Donenfeld, Jacob S. Liebowitz, Paul H. Sampliner and Wayne Boring, on the one hand, and Jerome Siegel and Joseph Shuster, co-authors of the comic bookfstrip SUPERMAN, on the other, executed on or about May 19, 1948; (g) A twelve page letter agreement (with additional pages for exhibits) between Warner Communications Inc., on the one hand, and Jerome Siegel and Joseph Shuster, co-authors of the comic book/strip SUPERMAN, on the other, executed on or about December 23,1975. 4. The effective date of termination shall be October 26, 201 3. 73 8 EXHIBIT M 117 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 11 of 170 Page ID #:37450 5. ' No prior termination of the grants of rights in the copyright of the aforementioned Works for their renewal copyright term has been exercised by the author, Joseph Shuster, or his statutory heirs or representatives pursuant to Section 304 (c) of the United States Copyright Act (1 7 U.S.C. 304(c)). 6. Joseph Shuster died on July 30, 1992. There is no living widow, child or grandchild of Mr. Shuster. The undersigned, Mark Warren Peary is the Executor of the Estate of Joseph Shuster; and, as such, is the person entitled to exercise Joseph Shuster's termination interest pursuant to 17 U.S.C. $304 (d), incorporating without limitation 17 U.S.C. !j 304 (c)(2)(D), as to the grants of the transfers described herein. To the best knowledge and belief of the undersigned, this notice has been signed by all 4 W Cn 0 V, persons whose signature is necessary to terminate said grants under Section 304(d) of u 4 4 n W Title 17, United States Code. , Dated: ~ o v e r n b e a 2003 Mark Warren Peary Executor of the state of Joseph Shuster d o Marc Toberoff, Esq. 9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 81 1 Beverly Hills, CA 9021 2 EXHIBIT M 118 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 12 of 170 Page ID #:37451 CERTIFICATE OF INVESTIGATION I hereby certify that before serving the foregoing document described as NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF TWNSFER COVERING EXTENDED RENEWAL TERM OF "SUPERMANn, and pursuant to 37 C.F.R. Section 201.1 O(d), I caused a reasonable investigation to be made as to the current ownership of the rights being terminated, including a search of the records in the U.S. Copyright Office. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this "$ay of November, 2003, at Los Angeles, California. Marc Toberoff, Esq. 9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 81 1 -4 CI' C' Beverly Hills, CA 90212 5 u w Counsel for the Estate of Joseph Shuster w W EXHIBIT M 119 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 13 of 170 Page ID #:37452 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I caused a true copy of the foregoing document described as NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF TRANSFER COVERING EXTENDED RENEWAL fi TERM OF "SUPERMAN" to be served this L d a y of November, 2003, by First Class Mail, postage prepaid, upon the following: To: Time Warner Inc. 75 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 1001 9 Attn: Richard 0. Parsons Chief Executive Officer Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P. 75 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 1 001 9 Attn: Barry M. Meyer Chairman & C.E.O. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. 4000 Wamer Boulevard Burbank, CA 91 522 Attn: John A. Schulman V.P. & General Counsel , Warner Bros. Inc. , 4000 Wamer Boulevard Burbank, CA 91 522 Attn: John A. Schulman V.P. & General Counsel Warner Communications Inc. C/O Time Wamer, Inc. 75 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 1 001 9 Attn: Paul T. Cappucio E.V.P. & General Counsel Warner Bros. Television 4000 Wamer Boulevard Burbank, CA 91 522 Attn: Peter Roth, President Warner Music Group. 75 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 1001 9 Attn: Roger Ames . Chairman & C.E.0 Wamer Bros. Worldwide Consumer Products 4000 Warner Boulevard Burbank, CA 91 522 Attn: Dan Romanelli, President Warner Publisher Services, Inc. 135 W. 50th Street, 7* Floor New York, NY 10020 Attn: Rich Jacobsen President Time Warner Book Group, Inc. 1271 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 1 0020 Attn: Laurence J. Kirshbaum, CEO Warner Books, Inc. 1271 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Attn: Laurence J. Kirshbaum, CEO Little, Brown and Company, Inc. 1271 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Attn: Laurence J. Kirshbaum, CEO DC Comics, Inc. 1700 Broadway, 7m Floor New York, NY 1001 9 Attn: Paul Levitz President & Publisher EXHIBIT M 120 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 14 of 170 Page ID #:37453 DC Comics, a General Partnership llya Salkind and Pierre Spengler. 1700 Eroadway, 7th Floor 12 Chiswick Lane New York,.NY 1001 9 London W4 ZJE, England Attn: Paul Levitz Attn: Albion Gee, Esq. Executive V.P. & Publisher Albion Gee & Co DC Direct Hallmark Entertainment, Inc. d o DC Comics - 1325 Avenue of the Americas 1700 Broadway, 7'h Floor 21 st Floor New York, NY 1001 9 New York, NY 1001 9 Attn: Paul Levitz Attn: Robert Halmi, Jr. E.V.P. & Publisher Chairman Milton Bradley Co. Marvel Entertainment Group, Inc.. Division of Hasbro I nc. 10 East 4ofh Streetl gth Floor 433 Shaker Road New York, NY 1001 6 East Longmeadow, MA 01 028 Attn: F. Peter Cuneo Attn: David E. Wilson, President President & C.E.0 Hasbro, Inc. 1027 Newport Avenue Pawtucket, RI 02861 Attn: Alan Hassenfeld Chief Executive Officer Wildstorm Productions 888 Prospect Street, Suite 240 La Jolla, CA 92037 Attn: Jim Lee Editor & Director Wildstorm Productions d o DC Comics 1700 Broadway, 76 Floor New York, NY 1001 9 Attn: Paul Levitz President & Pu biisher Dark Horse Publications 10956 S.E. Main St. Milwaukie, OR 97222 Attn: Michael Richardson, President Golden Books Publishing 1 540 Broadway New York, NY 10036 Attn: Amy Jaras how Associate Publisher Random House Golden Books for Young Readers 1540 Broadway New York, NY 10036 Attn: Kate Klimo Vice President & Publisher Random House, Inc. 1 745 Broadway New York, NY 1001 9 Attn: Katherine J. Trager Senior V.P. & General Counsel lnkworks 4320 Delta Lake Dr. Raleigh, NC 2761 2 Attn: Allan Caplan President & CEO " Cantharus Productions, N.V. Penguin Group (USA) Inc. 8965 Bay Cove Ct. 375 Hudson Street Orlando, FL 3281 9 New York, NY 1001 4 Attn: llya Salkind Attn: David Shanks, C.E.O. 77 EXHIBIT M 121 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 15 of 170 Page ID #:37454 DK Publishing, Inc. Scholastic, Inc. 375 Hudson Street 557 Broadway New York, NY 1001 4 New York, NY 1 00 1 2 Attn: Christopher Davis, Publisher Attn: Richard Robinson Chairman & CEO I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this / J%~ of November, 2003, at Los Angeles, California. Marc Toberoff, Esq. 9595 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 81 1 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Counsel for the Estate of Joseph Shuster EXHIBIT M 122 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 16 of 170 Page ID #:37455 IPWW 00007 EXHIBIT N 123 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 17 of 170 Page ID #:37456 EXHIBIT O 124 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 18 of 170 Page ID #:37457 REDACTED CONFIDENTIAL MWP 00054 EXHIBIT P 125 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 19 of 170 Page ID #:37458 REDACTED CONFIDENTIAL MWP 00055 EXHIBIT P 126 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 20 of 170 Page ID #:37459 REDACTED CONFIDENTIAL MWP 00056 EXHIBIT P 127 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 21 of 170 Page ID #:37460 REDACTED CONFIDENTIAL MWP 00057 EXHIBIT P 128 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 22 of 170 Page ID #:37461 CONFIDENTIAL LSL 00213 REDACTED EXHIBIT Q 129 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 23 of 170 Page ID #:37462 CONFIDENTIAL LSL 00214 REDACTED EXHIBIT Q 130 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 24 of 170 Page ID #:37463 CONFIDENTIAL LSL 00215 REDACTED EXHIBIT Q 131 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 25 of 170 Page ID #:37464 CONFIDENTIAL LSL 00216 REDACTED EXHIBIT Q 132 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 26 of 170 Page ID #:37465 CONFIDENTIAL LSL 00217 REDACTED EXHIBIT Q 133 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 27 of 170 Page ID #:37466 CONFIDENTIAL LSL 00218 REDACTED EXHIBIT Q 134 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 28 of 170 Page ID #:37467 EXHIBIT R 135 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 29 of 170 Page ID #:37468 EXHIBIT R 136 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 30 of 170 Page ID #:37469 EXHIBIT R 137 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 31 of 170 Page ID #:37470 EXHIBIT R 138 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 32 of 170 Page ID #:37471 EXHIBIT R 139 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 33 of 170 Page ID #:37472 EXHIBIT R 140 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 34 of 170 Page ID #:37473 EXHIBIT R 141 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 35 of 170 Page ID #:37474 EXHIBIT S 142 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 36 of 170 Page ID #:37475 EXHIBIT S 143 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 37 of 170 Page ID #:37476 EXHIBIT S 144 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 38 of 170 Page ID #:37477 EXHIBIT S 145 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 39 of 170 Page ID #:37478 EXHIBIT S 146 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 40 of 170 Page ID #:37479 EXHIBIT S 147 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 41 of 170 Page ID #:37480 EXHIBIT S 148 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 42 of 170 Page ID #:37481 EXHIBIT S 149 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 43 of 170 Page ID #:37482 EXHIBIT S 150 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 44 of 170 Page ID #:37483 EXHIBIT S 151 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 45 of 170 Page ID #:37484 EXHIBIT S 152 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 46 of 170 Page ID #:37485 EXHIBIT S 153 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 47 of 170 Page ID #:37486 EXHIBIT T 154 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 48 of 170 Page ID #:37487 EXHIBIT T 155 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 49 of 170 Page ID #:37488 EXHIBIT T 156 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 50 of 170 Page ID #:37489 EXHIBIT T 157 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 51 of 170 Page ID #:37490 EXHIBIT T 158 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 52 of 170 Page ID #:37491 EXHIBIT T 159 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 53 of 170 Page ID #:37492 EXHIBIT T 160 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 54 of 170 Page ID #:37493 EXHIBIT T 161 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 55 of 170 Page ID #:37494 EXHIBIT T 162 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 56 of 170 Page ID #:37495 EXHIBIT T 163 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 57 of 170 Page ID #:37496 EXHIBIT T 164 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 58 of 170 Page ID #:37497 EXHIBIT T 165 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 59 of 170 Page ID #:37498 EXHIBIT T 166 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 60 of 170 Page ID #:37499 EXHIBIT T 167 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 61 of 170 Page ID #:37500 EXHIBIT U 168 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 62 of 170 Page ID #:37501 EXHIBIT U 169 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 63 of 170 Page ID #:37502 EXHIBIT U 170 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 64 of 170 Page ID #:37503 EXHIBIT U 171 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 65 of 170 Page ID #:37504 EXHIBIT U 172 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 66 of 170 Page ID #:37505 EXHIBIT U 173 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 67 of 170 Page ID #:37506 EXHIBIT U 174 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 68 of 170 Page ID #:37507 EXHIBIT U 175 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 69 of 170 Page ID #:37508 EXHIBIT U 176 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 70 of 170 Page ID #:37509 EXHIBIT U 177 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 71 of 170 Page ID #:37510 EXHIBIT U 178 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 72 of 170 Page ID #:37511 EXHIBIT U 179 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 73 of 170 Page ID #:37512 EXHIBIT U 180 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 74 of 170 Page ID #:37513 EXHIBIT U 181 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 75 of 170 Page ID #:37514 EXHIBIT U 182 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 76 of 170 Page ID #:37515 EXHIBIT U 183 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 77 of 170 Page ID #:37516 EXHIBIT U 184 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 78 of 170 Page ID #:37517 EXHIBIT U 185 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 79 of 170 Page ID #:37518 EXHIBIT U 186 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 80 of 170 Page ID #:37519 EXHIBIT U 187 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 81 of 170 Page ID #:37520 EXHIBIT U 188 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 82 of 170 Page ID #:37521 EXHIBIT U 189 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 83 of 170 Page ID #:37522 EXHIBIT U 190 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 84 of 170 Page ID #:37523 EXHIBIT U 191 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 85 of 170 Page ID #:37524 EXHIBIT U 192 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 86 of 170 Page ID #:37525 EXHIBIT U 193 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 87 of 170 Page ID #:37526 EXHIBIT U 194 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 88 of 170 Page ID #:37527 EXHIBIT U 195 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 89 of 170 Page ID #:37528 EXHIBIT U 196 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 90 of 170 Page ID #:37529 EXHIBIT U 197 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 91 of 170 Page ID #:37530 EXHIBIT U 198 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 92 of 170 Page ID #:37531 EXHIBIT U 199 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 93 of 170 Page ID #:37532 EXHIBIT G 38 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW -RZ Document 333-2 Filed 10/14/11 Page 31 of 57 Page ID #:21943 EXHIBIT V 200 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 94 of 170 Page ID #:37533 EXHIBIT W 201 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 95 of 170 Page ID #:37534 EXHIBIT W 202 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 96 of 170 Page ID #:37535 EXHIBIT W 203 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 97 of 170 Page ID #:37536 EXHIBIT W 204 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 98 of 170 Page ID #:37537 EXHIBIT W 205 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 99 of 170 Page ID #:37538 EXHIBIT W 206 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 100 of 170 Page ID #:37539 EXHIBIT W 207 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 101 of 170 Page ID #:37540 EXHIBIT W 208 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 102 of 170 Page ID #:37541 EXHIBIT W 209 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 103 of 170 Page ID #:37542 EXHIBIT W 210 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 104 of 170 Page ID #:37543 EXHIBIT W 211 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 105 of 170 Page ID #:37544 EXHIBIT W 212 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 106 of 170 Page ID #:37545 EXHIBIT W 213 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 107 of 170 Page ID #:37546 EXHIBIT W 214 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 108 of 170 Page ID #:37547 EXHIBIT W 215 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 109 of 170 Page ID #:37548 EXHIBIT W 216 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 110 of 170 Page ID #:37549 EXHIBIT W 217 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 111 of 170 Page ID #:37550 EXHIBIT W 218 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 112 of 170 Page ID #:37551 EXHIBIT W 219 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 113 of 170 Page ID #:37552 EXHIBIT W 220 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 114 of 170 Page ID #:37553 EXHIBIT W 221 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 115 of 170 Page ID #:37554 EXHIBIT W 222 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 116 of 170 Page ID #:37555 EXHIBIT W 223 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 117 of 170 Page ID #:37556 EXHIBIT W 224 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 118 of 170 Page ID #:37557 EXHIBIT W 225 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 119 of 170 Page ID #:37558 EXHIBIT W 226 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 120 of 170 Page ID #:37559 EXHIBIT W 227 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 121 of 170 Page ID #:37560 EXHIBIT W 228 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 122 of 170 Page ID #:37561 EXHIBIT W 229 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 123 of 170 Page ID #:37562 EXHIBIT W 230 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 124 of 170 Page ID #:37563 EXHIBIT W 231 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 125 of 170 Page ID #:37564 EXHIBIT W 232 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 126 of 170 Page ID #:37565 EXHIBIT W 233 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 127 of 170 Page ID #:37566 EXHIBIT W 234 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 128 of 170 Page ID #:37567 EXHIBIT W 235 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 129 of 170 Page ID #:37568 EXHIBIT W 236 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 130 of 170 Page ID #:37569 EXHIBIT W 237 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 131 of 170 Page ID #:37570 EXHIBIT W 238 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 132 of 170 Page ID #:37571 EXHIBIT W 239 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 133 of 170 Page ID #:37572 EXHIBIT W 240 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 134 of 170 Page ID #:37573 EXHIBIT W 241 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 135 of 170 Page ID #:37574 EXHIBIT W 242 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 136 of 170 Page ID #:37575 EXHIBIT W 243 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 137 of 170 Page ID #:37576 EXHIBIT W 244 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 138 of 170 Page ID #:37577 EXHIBIT W 245 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 139 of 170 Page ID #:37578 EXHIBIT W 246 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 140 of 170 Page ID #:37579 EXHIBIT W 247 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 141 of 170 Page ID #:37580 EXHIBIT W 248 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 142 of 170 Page ID #:37581 EXHIBIT W 249 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 143 of 170 Page ID #:37582 EXHIBIT W 250 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 144 of 170 Page ID #:37583 EXHIBIT W 251 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 145 of 170 Page ID #:37584 EXHIBIT W 252 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 146 of 170 Page ID #:37585 EXHIBIT W 253 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 147 of 170 Page ID #:37586 EXHIBIT W 254 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 148 of 170 Page ID #:37587 EXHIBIT W 255 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 149 of 170 Page ID #:37588 EXHIBIT W 256 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 150 of 170 Page ID #:37589 EXHIBIT W 257 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 151 of 170 Page ID #:37590 EXHIBIT W 258 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 152 of 170 Page ID #:37591 EXHIBIT W 259 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 153 of 170 Page ID #:37592 EXHIBIT W 260 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 154 of 170 Page ID #:37593 EXHIBIT W 261 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 155 of 170 Page ID #:37594 EXHIBIT W 262 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 156 of 170 Page ID #:37595 EXHIBIT W 263 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 157 of 170 Page ID #:37596 EXHIBIT W 264 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 158 of 170 Page ID #:37597 EXHIBIT W 265 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 159 of 170 Page ID #:37598 EXHIBIT W 266 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 160 of 170 Page ID #:37599 EXHIBIT W 267 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 161 of 170 Page ID #:37600 EXHIBIT W 268 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 162 of 170 Page ID #:37601 EXHIBIT W 269 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 163 of 170 Page ID #:37602 EXHIBIT W 270 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 164 of 170 Page ID #:37603 EXHIBIT W 271 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 165 of 170 Page ID #:37604 EXHIBIT W 272 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 166 of 170 Page ID #:37605 EXHIBIT W 273 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 167 of 170 Page ID #:37606 EXHIBIT W 274 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 168 of 170 Page ID #:37607 EXHIBIT W 275 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 169 of 170 Page ID #:37608 EXHIBIT W 276 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 170 of 170 Page ID #:37609 EXHIBIT X 277 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 1 of 123 Page ID #:37610 EXHIBIT X 278 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 2 of 123 Page ID #:37611 EXHIBIT X 279 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 3 of 123 Page ID #:37612 EXHIBIT X 280 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 4 of 123 Page ID #:37613 EXHIBIT X 281 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 5 of 123 Page ID #:37614 EXHIBIT X 282 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 6 of 123 Page ID #:37615 EXHIBIT Y 283 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 7 of 123 Page ID #:37616 EXHIBIT Y 284 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 8 of 123 Page ID #:37617 EXHIBIT Y 285 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 9 of 123 Page ID #:37618 EXHIBIT Y 286 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 10 of 123 Page ID #:37619 EXHIBIT Y 287 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 11 of 123 Page ID #:37620 EXHIBIT Y 288 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 12 of 123 Page ID #:37621 EXHIBIT Y 289 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 13 of 123 Page ID #:37622 EXHIBIT Y 290 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 14 of 123 Page ID #:37623 EXHIBIT Y 291 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 15 of 123 Page ID #:37624 EXHIBIT Y 292 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 16 of 123 Page ID #:37625 EXHIBIT Y 293 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 17 of 123 Page ID #:37626 EXHIBIT Y 294 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 18 of 123 Page ID #:37627 EXHIBIT Y 295 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 19 of 123 Page ID #:37628 EXHIBIT Y 296 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 20 of 123 Page ID #:37629 EXHIBIT Y 297 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 21 of 123 Page ID #:37630 EXHIBIT Y 298 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 22 of 123 Page ID #:37631 EXHIBIT Y 299 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 23 of 123 Page ID #:37632 EXHIBIT Y 300 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 24 of 123 Page ID #:37633 EXHIBIT Y 301 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 25 of 123 Page ID #:37634 EXHIBIT Y 302 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 26 of 123 Page ID #:37635 EXHIBIT Y 303 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 27 of 123 Page ID #:37636 EXHIBIT Y 304 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 28 of 123 Page ID #:37637 EXHIBIT Y 305 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 29 of 123 Page ID #:37638 EXHIBIT Y 306 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 30 of 123 Page ID #:37639 EXHIBIT Y 307 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 31 of 123 Page ID #:37640 EXHIBIT Y 308 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 32 of 123 Page ID #:37641 EXHIBIT Y 309 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 33 of 123 Page ID #:37642 EXHIBIT Y 310 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 34 of 123 Page ID #:37643 EXHIBIT Y 311 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 35 of 123 Page ID #:37644 EXHIBIT Y 312 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 36 of 123 Page ID #:37645 EXHIBIT Y 313 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 37 of 123 Page ID #:37646 EXHIBIT Y 314 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 38 of 123 Page ID #:37647 EXHIBIT Y 315 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 39 of 123 Page ID #:37648 EXHIBIT Y 316 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 40 of 123 Page ID #:37649 EXHIBIT Y 317 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 41 of 123 Page ID #:37650 EXHIBIT Y 318 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 42 of 123 Page ID #:37651 EXHIBIT Y 319 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 43 of 123 Page ID #:37652 EXHIBIT Y 320 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 44 of 123 Page ID #:37653 EXHIBIT Y 321 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 45 of 123 Page ID #:37654 EXHIBIT Y 322 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 46 of 123 Page ID #:37655 EXHIBIT Y 323 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 47 of 123 Page ID #:37656 EXHIBIT Y 324 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 48 of 123 Page ID #:37657 EXHIBIT Y 325 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 49 of 123 Page ID #:37658 EXHIBIT Y 326 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 50 of 123 Page ID #:37659 EXHIBIT Y 327 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 51 of 123 Page ID #:37660 EXHIBIT Y 328 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 52 of 123 Page ID #:37661 EXHIBIT Y 329 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 53 of 123 Page ID #:37662 EXHIBIT Y 330 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 54 of 123 Page ID #:37663 EXHIBIT Y 331 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 55 of 123 Page ID #:37664 EXHIBIT Y 332 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 56 of 123 Page ID #:37665 EXHIBIT Y 333 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 57 of 123 Page ID #:37666 EXHIBIT Y 334 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 58 of 123 Page ID #:37667 EXHIBIT Y 335 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 59 of 123 Page ID #:37668 EXHIBIT Y 336 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 60 of 123 Page ID #:37669 EXHIBIT Y 337 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 61 of 123 Page ID #:37670 EXHIBIT Y 338 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 62 of 123 Page ID #:37671 EXHIBIT Y 339 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 63 of 123 Page ID #:37672 EXHIBIT Y 340 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 64 of 123 Page ID #:37673 EXHIBIT Y 341 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 65 of 123 Page ID #:37674 EXHIBIT Y 342 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 66 of 123 Page ID #:37675 EXHIBIT Y 343 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 67 of 123 Page ID #:37676 EXHIBIT Y 344 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 68 of 123 Page ID #:37677 EXHIBIT Y 345 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 69 of 123 Page ID #:37678 EXHIBIT Y 346 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 70 of 123 Page ID #:37679 EXHIBIT Y 347 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 71 of 123 Page ID #:37680 EXHIBIT Y 348 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 72 of 123 Page ID #:37681 EXHIBIT Y 349 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 73 of 123 Page ID #:37682 EXHIBIT Y 350 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 74 of 123 Page ID #:37683 EXHIBIT Y 351 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 75 of 123 Page ID #:37684 EXHIBIT Y 352 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 76 of 123 Page ID #:37685 EXHIBIT Y 353 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 77 of 123 Page ID #:37686 EXHIBIT Y 354 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 78 of 123 Page ID #:37687 EXHIBIT Y 355 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 79 of 123 Page ID #:37688 EXHIBIT Y 356 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 80 of 123 Page ID #:37689 EXHIBIT Y 357 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 81 of 123 Page ID #:37690 EXHIBIT Y 358 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 82 of 123 Page ID #:37691 EXHIBIT Y 359 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 83 of 123 Page ID #:37692 EXHIBIT Y 360 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 84 of 123 Page ID #:37693 EXHIBIT Y 361 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 85 of 123 Page ID #:37694 EXHIBIT Y 362 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 86 of 123 Page ID #:37695 EXHIBIT Y 363 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 87 of 123 Page ID #:37696 EXHIBIT Y 364 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 88 of 123 Page ID #:37697 EXHIBIT Y 365 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 89 of 123 Page ID #:37698 EXHIBIT Y 366 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 90 of 123 Page ID #:37699 EXHIBIT Y 367 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 91 of 123 Page ID #:37700 EXHIBIT Y 368 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 92 of 123 Page ID #:37701 EXHIBIT Y 369 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 93 of 123 Page ID #:37702 EXHIBIT Y 370 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 94 of 123 Page ID #:37703 EXHIBIT Y 371 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 95 of 123 Page ID #:37704 EXHIBIT Y 372 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 96 of 123 Page ID #:37705 EXHIBIT Y 373 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 97 of 123 Page ID #:37706 EXHIBIT Y 374 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 98 of 123 Page ID #:37707 EXHIBIT Y 375 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 99 of 123 Page ID #:37708 EXHIBIT Y 376 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 100 of 123 Page ID #:37709 EXHIBIT Y 377 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 101 of 123 Page ID #:37710 EXHIBIT Y 378 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 102 of 123 Page ID #:37711 EXHIBIT Y 379 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 103 of 123 Page ID #:37712 EXHIBIT Y 380 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 104 of 123 Page ID #:37713 EXHIBIT Z 381 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 105 of 123 Page ID #:37714 EXHIBIT Z 382 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 106 of 123 Page ID #:37715 EXHIBIT Z 383 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 107 of 123 Page ID #:37716 EXHIBIT Z 384 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 108 of 123 Page ID #:37717 EXHIBIT Z 385 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 109 of 123 Page ID #:37718 EXHIBIT Z 386 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 110 of 123 Page ID #:37719 EXHIBIT Z 387 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 111 of 123 Page ID #:37720 EXHIBIT Z 388 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 112 of 123 Page ID #:37721 EXHIBIT Z 389 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 113 of 123 Page ID #:37722 EXHIBIT Z 390 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 114 of 123 Page ID #:37723 EXHIBIT Z 391 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 115 of 123 Page ID #:37724 EXHIBIT Z 392 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 116 of 123 Page ID #:37725 EXHIBIT Z 393 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 117 of 123 Page ID #:37726 EXHIBIT Z 394 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 118 of 123 Page ID #:37727 EXHIBIT Z 395 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 119 of 123 Page ID #:37728 EXHIBIT Z 396 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 120 of 123 Page ID #:37729 EXHIBIT Z 397 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 121 of 123 Page ID #:37730 EXHIBIT Z 398 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 122 of 123 Page ID #:37731 EXHIBIT Z 399 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-3 Filed 02/05/13 Page 123 of 123 Page ID #:37732 Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 646 Filed 02/17/11 Page 1 of 38 Page ID #:14199 EXHIBIT AA 400 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 1 of 84 Page ID #:37733 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
- 1 - SECOND AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS
On January 31, 2011, the Court granted, with changes, plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 and 16. Docket Nos. 637, 643. For purposes of completeness, defendants hereby reassert the counterclaims contained in the First Amended Counterclaims, Docket No. 42, with changes to reflect only the current date, the updated pleading title, and the Courts dismissal of Time Warner Inc. as a party to this action. Defendants reserve all rights, including to amend these counterclaims as and when appropriate. Defendant/Counterclaimant DC Comics, for its Second Amended Counterclaims against Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendants Joanne Siegel and Laura Siegel Larson, alleges: PARTIES 1. Defendant/Counterclaimant DC Comics (DC or DC Comics) is a New York General Partnership engaged in the business of, inter alia, creating, exploiting, and licensing comic book stories and characters. DC is the successor in interest to all rights under copyright and other rights, including trademark rights and the good will in and to the first Superman story and all other works and products relating to the Superman character. 2. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant Joanne Siegel is an individual and citizen of the State of California, in the County of Los Angeles. Upon further information and belief, Joanne Siegel is the widow of Jerome Siegel, the individual credited as a co-creator of the first Superman stories. 3. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant Laura Siegel Larson is an individual and citizen of the State of California, in the County of Los Angeles. Upon further information and belief, Laura Siegel Larson is a daughter of Jerome Siegel. Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendants Joanne Siegel and Laura Siegel Larson are referred to herein as the Siegels. Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 646 Filed 02/17/11 Page 2 of 38 Page ID #:14200 EXHIBIT AA 401 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 2 of 84 Page ID #:37734 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
- 2 - SECOND AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter hereof under the provisions of the U.S. Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 101 et seq., relating to copyright ownership, under sections 39 and 43 (a) and (c) of the U.S. Trademark Act, also known as the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1121 and 1125 (a) and (c), and sections 1331, 1332, 1338 (a) and 1338 (b) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1332, 1338 (a) and 1338 (b), as well as under principles of supplemental jurisdiction, 18 U.S.C. 1367. 5. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1391 (b) in that, upon information and belief, a substantial part of the events giving rise to DCs claims occurred or a substantial part of the properties that are the subject of these counterclaims are situated in this District and/or the Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants may be found in this District. FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTERCLAIMS Background And History 6. Upon information and belief, in or about 1933, Jerome Siegel (Siegel) and his friend and co-creator, Joseph Shuster (Shuster) collaborated on creating a number of stories, including a story entitled The Reign of the Superman, which was published in a magazine put out by Siegel and Shuster themselves entitled Science Fiction. Upon further information and belief, other than the same name, the Superman character in this story shared very little, if any, similarity with the character that would later become known as Superman. 7. Upon information and belief, in early 1933, Siegel and Shuster began collaborating on comic strips, initially for syndication and eventually for publication in comic books, a new and growing medium. Among their work together were a number of comic strips featuring a character they named Superman. This Superman character bore virtually no resemblance to the character of the same name that had previously appeared in the Science Fiction magazine. Upon Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 646 Filed 02/17/11 Page 3 of 38 Page ID #:14201 EXHIBIT AA 402 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 3 of 84 Page ID #:37735 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
- 3 - SECOND AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS
further information and belief, those works, which were never published, included: (a) twenty four (24) days of Superman comic strips intended for newspapers; (b) a seven page synopsis of the last eighteen days (weeks 2-4) of such strips; (c) a paragraph previewing Superman exploits; (d) a nine-page synopsis covering an additional two months of daily comic strips; and (e) fifteen daily comic strips (collectively the Unpublished Superman Works). 8. Upon information and belief, between 1933 and 1937 Siegel and Shuster submitted the Unpublished Superman Works to a number of prospective publishers and newspaper syndicates, but the work was rejected by them all. 9. Meanwhile, between 1935 and 1937, Siegel and Shuster created a number of comics strips that were published, including such titles as Dr. Occult, Henri Duval, and Spy. 10. On December 4, 1937, Siegel and Shuster entered into an Agreement of Employment (the December 4, 1937 Agreement) with Detective Comics, Inc. (DCI), a predecessor in interest to DC. Under the Agreement, Siegel and Shuster agreed to give their exclusive services in producing comic features entitled Slam Bradley and The Spy for a period of two years. Under the Agreement, Siegel and Shuster were required to submit any new comics to DCI first, which reserved the right to accept or reject the work for a period of sixty (60) days. 11. Early in 1938, DCI was looking for materials for a new comic book it was intending to publish under the name Action Comics. In that connection, upon information and belief, DCI was provided with the twenty four (24) days of Superman comic strips from the Unpublished Superman Works for review. At the instance and expense of DCI and subject to its right to control, Siegel and Shuster cut and pasted the comic strips, and added certain additional material, to create a thirteen page comic book story which was accepted for publication by DCI. 12. In an agreement with DCI dated March 1, 1938 (the March 1, 1938 Agreement), Siegel and Shuster, among other things, transferred to DCI the strip Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 646 Filed 02/17/11 Page 4 of 38 Page ID #:14202 EXHIBIT AA 403 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 4 of 84 Page ID #:37736 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
- 4 - SECOND AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS
entitled Superman . . . all good will attached thereto and exclusive right to the use of the characters and story, continuity and title of strip . . . and agreed not to employ Superman and other characters in the strip by their names contained therein. 13. DCI advertised the publication of the new comic story Superman and the new title Action Comics No. 1 in others of its publications, including but not limited to, More Fun Comics No. 31, Detective Comics No. 15, and New Adventure Comics No. 26, all of which are cover dated May 1938 and, upon information and belief, were distributed in copies to the public on or before April 1, 1938. These advertisements (the Superman Ads), which depict the Superman character in his costume, exhibiting super-strength, show almost the entirety of what would become the cover of Action Comics No. 1. 14. Upon information and belief, sometime prior to April 16, 1938, but after the Superman Ads, DCI published the thirteen page Superman comic book comprising the first Superman story in Action Comics No. 1, bearing the cover date June 1938 (hereinafter Action Comics No. 1). However, Action Comics No. 1 was not comprised entirely of the pre-existing Unpublished Superman Works. Rather, upon information and belief, in response to DCIs instruction that the Unpublished Superman Works be presented as a thirteen page comic book and subject to DCIs right to control, Siegel and Shuster created additional materials to complete Action Comics No. 1 (the Additional Action Comics No. 1 Materials). 15. After the publication of Action Comics No. 1, upon information and belief, Siegel and Shuster supplied further original Superman stories at DCIs instance and expense and subject to its right to control. On September 22, 1938, Siegel and Shuster entered into another employment agreement (the DCI September 22, 1938 Agreement), confirming that Siegel and Shuster had been doing the art work and continuity for said comics [including Superman comics] for us. We wish you to continue to do said work and hereby employ and retain you for Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 646 Filed 02/17/11 Page 5 of 38 Page ID #:14203 EXHIBIT AA 404 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 5 of 84 Page ID #:37737 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
- 5 - SECOND AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS
said purposes . . . . The DCI September 22, 1938 Agreement also contained an acknowledgement that DCI was the exclusive owner of Superman. 16. Also on September 22, 1938, Siegel and Shuster entered into an agreement with DCI and with the McClure Newspaper Syndicate (the McClure September 22, 1938 Agreement) concerning the use of Superman in newspaper strips. 17. All of Siegel and Shusters contributions to Superman comic books and comic strips published subsequent to Action Comics No. 1 as well as the Additional Action Comics No. 1 Materials, were made either under the DCI March 1, 1938 Agreement, the DCI September 22, 1938 Agreement, the McClure September 22, 1938 Agreement, or contemporaneous oral agreements confirmed by one or more of these Agreements, or certain subsequent agreements affirming those agreements, as employees of DCI or its successors or at DCIs instance and expense and subject to DCIs right of control, with the result that the copyrights to all Superman materials created by them after preparation of materials included in Action Comics No. 1 and to the Additional Action Comics No. 1 Materials are owned exclusively by DC Comics as works made for hire under the then applicable 1909 Copyright Act. 18. On November 30, 1938, Siegel wrote to DCI (the November 1938 Letter) suggesting that it do a comic book named Superboy, which would relate to the adventures of Superman as a youth. The November 30, 1938 Letter does not contain any discussion of plot, dialogue, appearance, or any other copyrightable material relating to Superboy. DCI decided not to publish a Superboy comic at that time. 19. In 1939, among the Superman comics prepared by Siegel and Shuster at the instance and expense of DCI and subject to its right of control, was Superman No. 1, with a cover date of Summer 1939. In Superman No. 1, Clark Kent was depicted as a youth with super powers. Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 646 Filed 02/17/11 Page 6 of 38 Page ID #:14204 EXHIBIT AA 405 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 6 of 84 Page ID #:37738 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
- 6 - SECOND AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS
20. On December 19, 1939, Siegel and Shuster entered into a new agreement with DCI (the December 19, 1939 Agreement), which agreement modified the DCI September 22, 1938 Agreement by, inter alia, doubling Siegel and Shusters compensation for Superman comic books and newspaper strips. In addition, the December 19, 1939 Agreement provided for payment for Siegel and Shuster for uses of Superman beyond comic books and newspaper strips, such as radio, motion pictures, and toys. Under the December 19, 1939 Agreement, Siegel and Shuster again acknowledged DCIs sole ownership of Superman. 21. Upon information and belief, in approximately December 1940, Siegel, on behalf of himself and Joe Shuster, submitted to DCI a thirteen-page script of continuity for Superboy (the Unpublished 1940 Superboy Script), renewing his suggestion to DCI that it publish a comic book about Superman as a youth. The December 1940 Superboy Script, which sets forth a credit line of By Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, states, in part, [s]o many faithful followers of todays leading adventure comic strip, SUPERMAN, wrote in demanding the adventures of Clark Kent as a youth . . .And so here he is at last...the answer to your requests... Americas outstanding boy hero: SUPERBOY! The Unpublished 1940 Superboy Script goes on to say about Superboy that [i]n later years he was to become the might [sic] figure known as SUPERMAN! Again, DCI decided not to publish a Superboy comic at that time. 22. Upon information and belief, on a date prior to November 18, 1944, DCI published its first comic book containing the adventures of Superboy, who was Superman as a youth, in More Fun Comics No. 101 with a cover date of January-February 1945 (hereinafter More Fun Comics No. 101). Upon information and belief, DCI employed Shuster or an artist from Shusters art studio (with Shusters knowledge and under his supervision) to create the artwork and writer Don Cameron to write the Superboy story contained in More Fun Comics No. 101. The Superboy story in More Fun Comics No. 101 bears little if any Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 646 Filed 02/17/11 Page 7 of 38 Page ID #:14205 EXHIBIT AA 406 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 7 of 84 Page ID #:37739 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
- 7 - SECOND AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS
resemblance to anything contained in the Unpublished 1940 Superboy Script, and such similarities as may exist are common to earlier Superman related material owned by DCI. 23. In 1947, Siegel and Shuster brought suit against, inter alia, DCIs successor in interest, National Comics Publications, Inc. (National) in the New York Supreme Court in Westchester County (the Westchester Action). The Westchester Action was, in part, the culmination of a dispute between Siegel and Shuster and National over what Siegel and Shuster claimed was DCIs unauthorized publication of Superboy. In the Westchester Action, in addition to seeking redress in connection with Superboy, Siegel and Shuster sought to invalidate the March 1, 1938 Agreement, argued that the DCI September 22, 1938 Agreement was obtained by duress, and sought to recapture all rights in Superman. 24. On November 21, 1947, the Court in the Westchester Action issued an opinion (the Westchester Opinion) after trial in which it found that the March 1, 1938 Agreement transferred to DCI all rights in Superman and that the DCI September 22, 1938 Agreement was valid and not obtained under duress. The Court also held that in publishing Superboy, DCI had acted illegally. 25. At the Courts request, the parties to the Westchester Action submitted proposed fact findings and conclusions of law. On April 12, 1948, the Court adopted fact findings and conclusions of law and issued an interlocutory judgment (collectively the Westchester Action Interlocutory Judgment). The defendants in the Westchester Action filed a notice of appeal, and the Westchester Action Interlocutory Judgment was stayed pending appeal. 26. Shortly thereafter, the parties to the Westchester Action entered into two separate agreements: (a) a stipulation dated May 19, 1948 (the May 19, 1948 Stipulation) and (b) a consent judgment dated May 21, 1948 (the May 21, 1948 Consent Agreement). Under both documents, inter alia, Siegel and Shuster: (a) agreed to vacate the Westchester Action Interlocutory Judgment; (b) acknowledge Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 646 Filed 02/17/11 Page 8 of 38 Page ID #:14206 EXHIBIT AA 407 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 8 of 84 Page ID #:37740 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
- 8 - SECOND AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS
that, pursuant to the March 1, 1938 Agreement, they transferred to DCI all rights in and to Superman, including the title, names, characters, concept and formula as set forth in Action Comics No. 1; (c) acknowledged National was sole and exclusive owner of Superman, the conception, idea, continuity, pictorial representation and formula thereof in all media; (d) agreed that they were enjoined from creating, publishing or distributing any Superman work or any imitation thereof, and from using the title Superman or title that contained the word Super; (e) acknowledged that National was the sole owner of and owned exclusive rights in Superboy; (f) agreed that they were enjoined from creating, publishing or distributing Superboy or any imitation thereof; (g) agreed they were prohibited from representing their past connection with Superman and Superboy in such a way to confuse the public that such connection still existed; and (h) agreed they were prohibited from using any coloring, lettering or printing in referring to Superman or Superboy that was imitative of that used by National. 27. In the 1960s, Siegel and Shuster again brought suit against National, this time in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for a declaration that they (and not National) owned the copyright in the renewal copyright term for Action Comics No. 1. In a decision published in Siegel v. National Periodical Publications, Inc., 364 F. Supp. 1032 (S.D.N.Y. 1973), the district court held, inter alia, that the agreements between Siegel and Shuster on the one hand and DCI (and later National) on the other, intended to assign all rights in Superman to DCI and National, including renewal copyright rights. 28. In a decision published in Siegel v. National Periodical Publications, Inc., 508 F.2d 909 (2d Cir. 1974), the Court of Appeals affirmed that portion of the lower courts ruling relating to Nationals ownership of all rights in Superman. Siegel and Shuster did not further appeal the ruling. 29. On December 23, 1975, Siegel and Shuster entered into an agreement with Warner Communications, Inc., then Nationals parent company (the Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 646 Filed 02/17/11 Page 9 of 38 Page ID #:14207 EXHIBIT AA 408 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 9 of 84 Page ID #:37741 1 2 3 4 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 - SECOND AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS
December 23, 1975 Agreement). Under this agreement, Siegel and Shuster again acknowledged that Warner Communications, Inc. was the sole and exclusive owner of all right, title and interest in and to the Superman concept, idea, continuity, pictorial representation, formula, characters, cartoons and comic strips, title, logo, copyrights and trademarks, including any and all renewals and extensions of such rights, in the United States and throughout the world, in any and all forms of publication, reproduction and presentation, whether now in existence or hereafter devised . . . . 30. Under the December 23, 1975 Agreement, Siegel and Shuster each were to and did receive throughout their lives annual payments as well as medical insurance coverage. Upon Siegels death, annual payments were to be made to Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant Joanne Siegel for the remainder of her life. The amount of the annual payment pursuant to the December 23, 1975 Agreement was increased over the years. Since Siegels passing in 1996, Joanne Siegel has continuously received and accepted annual payments and health insurance under that agreement. DC Comics Development And Licensing Of Superman Works And Products 31. The initial graphic representations of the Superman character in 1938, now stylistically dated, presented his adventures with a limited number of characters in settings that had the look and feel of that particular period. From the portrayal of the Superman character in Action Comics No. 1, we only know that he is an upright hero who was sent as an infant to Earth aboard a space ship from an unnamed distant planet destroyed by old age. Superman is also depicted as secretly possessed of extraordinary physical abilities, including superhuman strength and the ability to leap 1/8 th of a mile, hurdle a twenty-story building and run faster than an express train. In his ordinary life, the character is depicted as a mild-mannered newspaper reporter for The Daily Star known as Clark Kent, and in his alter ego, Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 646 Filed 02/17/11 Page 10 of 38 Page ID #:14208 EXHIBIT AA 409 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 10 of 84 Page ID #:37742 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
- 10 - SECOND AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS
Superman is a costumed heroic figure using his extraordinary physical abilities to fight against crime. 32. Since the publication of Action Comics No. 1, DC Comics has authored, published and distributed several thousand other comic books containing the adventures of Superman throughout the United States and abroad in many millions of copies, adding more than 60 years worth of material to further define, update and improve upon the Superman character and presenting an ongoing new flow of Superman exploits and characters resulting in the creation of an entire fictional Superman universe. 33. In addition to the publication of new comic books containing the Superman comic strip character, DC Comics has over the last 66 years participated in the creation, development and licensing of numerous Superman live action and animated feature length motion pictures, motion picture serials, radio and television serials and live theatrical presentations. These works have also significantly contributed to the modernizing and evolution of the Superman character from his 1938 appearance. 34. Over the years since Action Comics No. 1, the presentations of Superman provided first by DCI and then DC Comics did not present a static depiction but an ever-evolving portrayal of Superman continuously, featuring new super powers, new villains, new components to the Superman universe, new elements in the Superman back story, and changes in the appearance of Superman. Most notably, many of Supermans powers that are among his most famous today did not appear in Action Comics No. 1 but only appeared in later publications. These include: his ability to fly; his super-vision which enables him to see through walls (X-ray vision) and across great distances (telescopic vision); his super- hearing which enables him to hear conversations at great distances; his invulnerability to injury which is most often shown as bullets bouncing off his chest and/or arms. Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 646 Filed 02/17/11 Page 11 of 38 Page ID #:14209 EXHIBIT AA 410 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 11 of 84 Page ID #:37743 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
- 11 - SECOND AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS
35. One notable part of the evolution of the appearance of the Superman character undertaken by DC Comics and its predecessors, has been the transformation of the emblem on the chest of Supermans costume. In Action Comics No. 1, the emblem was comprised of a small yellow inverted triangle bearing the letter S shown in yellow and sometimes in red (the Action Comics No. 1 Crest). Thereafter, in changing the appearance of Superman and his costume, DC Comics and/or its predecessors significantly changed the Action Comics No. 1 Crest. Bearing little if any resemblance to the original, it is now a large yellow five-sided shield, outlined in the color red, and bearing the letter S in the middle, also in the color red (the S in Shield Device). The S in Shield Device, as transformed by DC Comics and its predecessors, has become a strong symbol, standing alone, of all goods and services relating to Superman and his sole source, DC Comics and its predecessors. 36. At all relevant times, DC Comics, its predecessors in interest and licensees have duly complied with the provisions of the 1976 Copyright Act and its 1909 predecessor statute with respect to securing copyright protection for the numerous works in which the Superman character has appeared and establishing DC Comics copyright ownership thereof, including the original and all works based upon and derived therefrom, and have received from the Register of Copyrights, valid and subsisting certificates of copyright registration and renewal with respect thereto. 37. DC Comics and its predecessors have, since 1938, continuously held themselves out as the exclusive owners of all rights under copyright in Superman. 38. DC Comics has over many decades adopted and made long, continuous and exclusive use of (a) the name and mark Superman and (b) certain key symbols and indicia of origin in connection with and to identify all authorized uses of the Superman character in print and all other media (sometimes hereinafter the Superman symbols and indicia of origin). The Superman name and mark and Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 646 Filed 02/17/11 Page 12 of 38 Page ID #:14210 EXHIBIT AA 411 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 12 of 84 Page ID #:37744 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
- 12 - SECOND AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS
Superman symbols and indicia of origin include, inter alia, Supermans characteristic outfit, comprised of a full length blue leotard with red cape, a yellow belt, the S in Shield Device, as well as certain key identifying phrases. Most notable among the latter is Look!...Up in the sky!...Its a bird!...Its a plane!...Its Superman! first used in the introduction to the 1940 radio program The Adventures of Superman, and thereafter continuously repeated in Superman television programming and various Superman publications. All of these Superman symbols and indicia of origin have been used on and in connection with a wide variety of publications and licensed goods and services, as they have been added to the Superman character and mythology under DC Comics and/or its predecessors supervision and direction, but, in any event, for the earliest symbols, since as early as 1938. 39. As a result of the above-described continuous and exclusive use by DC Comics of the Superman name and mark, as well as the Superman symbols and indicia of origin for over sixty years, the names, marks and symbols and the appearance of the Superman character have become famous and the public has come to recognize that all publications, entertainment and products featuring Superman or bearing such marks all come from the same source, namely, DC Comics, and that DC Comics is the exclusive source of the Superman character and all uses of the character on and in connection with any goods and services. 40. DC Comics owns dozens of federal trademark registrations for Superman related indicia across a broad array of goods and services. Those registrations include, but are not limited to the following for the following marks: (a) SUPERMAN (in block letters) Reg. Nos. 2,419,510, 2,204,195, 1,278,177, 1,221,718, 1,209,668, 1,175,907, 1,183,841, 1,248,822, 1,216,976, 1,186,803, 1,189,393, 1,180,068, 1,184,822, 1,181,536, 1,182,947, 1,070,290; (b) SUPERMAN (in the well-known telescopic lettering) Reg. Nos. 2,226,026, 1,278,175, 1,200,394, 1,185,526, 1,185,853, 1,209,863, 1,220,896, 1,183,809, Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 646 Filed 02/17/11 Page 13 of 38 Page ID #:14211 EXHIBIT AA 412 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 13 of 84 Page ID #:37745 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
- 13 - SECOND AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS
1,182,226, 1,181,537, 1,189,355, 1,218,552, 1,108,577, 391,821, 371,803; (c) the S in Shield Device (either alone or as part of a rendering of Superman) 2,211,378, 2,226,415, 1,262,572, 1,179,537, 1,197,814, 1,200,387, 1,200,233, 1,209,743, 1,201,167, 1,201,149, 1,229,321, 1,199,690, 1,199,552, 1,199,630, 1,184,881, 1,182,172, 1,189,376, 1,180,292, 1,178,048, 1,182,041, 1,173,150, 1,140,418, 1,235,769, 411,871; (d) SUPERMAN RIDE OF STEEL Reg. No. 2,485,624; (e) MAN OF STEEL Reg. Nos. 2,226,436, 1,433,864; (f) SUPERBOY Reg. Nos. 394,923 (telescopic lettering), 1,221,719 (block letters); (g) SUPERGIRL (stylized and in block letters) Reg. Nos. 987,395, 414,623, 1,238,334; (h) SUPERWOMAN (in telescopic lettering) Reg. No. 394,922; (i) SMALLVILLE Reg. Nos. 2,626,700, 2,809,352, 2,768,213, 2,765,711, 2,882,881; (j) KRYPTONITE Reg. Nos. 2,656,1,239,506; (k) KRYPTO Reg. No. 1,168,306; (1) LOOK, UP IN THE SKY, ITS A BIRD, ITS A PLANE Reg. No. 1,527,304; (m) LEX LUTHOR Reg. Nos. 2,802,600, 1,634,007; (n) LOIS LANE Reg. No. 1,184,702; (o) PERRY WHITE Reg. No. 1,184,703; (p) JIMMY OLSEN Reg. No. 1,190,637; (q) LOIS AND CLARK Reg. No. 1,990,231; and (r) ACTION COMICS (stylized) 360,765 (collectively with the SUPERMAN symbols and indicia of origin, the Superman Marks). 41. These registrations alone suffice to show the unusual breadth and scope of the use of such marks related to Superman by DC Comics or its licensees on or in connection with a broad range of goods and services, all of which have come to be seen over six decades by countless consumers as indicating an exclusive authorization or sponsorship thereof by plaintiff DC Comics, the publisher and source of all Superman comic books and other Superman productions and products. The Superman Notices Of Termination 42. On April 8, 1997, DC Comics received from Plaintiffs Counterclaim Defendants Joanne Siegel and Laura Siegel Larson, through their then-counsel, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, seven documents entitled Notice Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 646 Filed 02/17/11 Page 14 of 38 Page ID #:14212 EXHIBIT AA 413 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 14 of 84 Page ID #:37746 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
- 14 - SECOND AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS
of Termination of Transfer Covering Extended Renewal. Those documents purport, under 17 U.S.C. 304 (c), to terminate, effective April 16, 1999, the Siegels share in the following grants of copyright: (a) the December 4, 1937 Agreement; (b) the March 1, 1938 Agreement; (c) the DCI September 22, 1938 Agreement; (d) the McClure September 22, 1938 Agreement; (e) the December 19 1939 Agreement; (f) the May 19, 1948 Stipulation; (g) the December 23, 1975 Agreement (collectively the Superman Notices). However, the Siegels served no notice terminating their share of the copyright grant in the May 21, 1948 Consent Agreement. 43. The Superman Notices purport to terminate the Siegels share of the above grants listed therein in the Unpublished Superman Works, Action Comics No. 1, and in excess of 15,000 additional works (the Post-Action Comics No. 1 Works). However, in none of the seven Superman Notices, or anywhere else, do the Siegels purport to terminate their share of any copyright grant in the Superman Ads. 44. In the Superman Notices, the Siegels expressly recognize and acknowledge that the character Superboy is a derivative work based on Superman. The Superman Notices expressly identify Superboy as part of the Superman family of characters in which the Siegels are purporting to terminate their grants. Indeed, the more than 15,000 works listed in the Superman Notices include hundreds of publications and other works that feature only Superboy (as opposed to Superman), and also Superman No. 1 with a cover date of Summer 1939, in which Superman is depicted as a youth. 45. In late November, 1998, DC Comics received from Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants. Joanne Siegel and Laura Siegel Larson, through their then-counsel, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, four documents entitled Notice of Termination of Transfer Covering Extended Renewal. Those documents purport to terminate, effective November 27, 2000, the Siegels Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 646 Filed 02/17/11 Page 15 of 38 Page ID #:14213 EXHIBIT AA 414 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 15 of 84 Page ID #:37747 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
- 15 - SECOND AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS
share it the following grants of copyright relating to the character known as The Spectre: (a) the December 4, 1937 Agreement; (b) a September 22, 1938 Agreement; (c) and October 10, 1939 Agreement and (d) a second October 10, 1939 Agreement (collectively the Spectre Notices). 46. The Spectre Notices purport to terminate the Siegels share of the above grants in: (a) the Spectre character appearing in costume in an ad in issue No. 51 of More Fun Comics with a cover date of January 1940; (b) the first Spectre comic book story published in issue No. 52 of More Fun Comics with a cover date of February 1940; (c) part 2 of the first Spectre comic book story published in issue No. 53 of More Fun Comics with a cover date of March 1940, and hundreds of additional works listed the Spectre Notices (collectively the Spectre Works). The Parties Negotiations And The Agreement Reached 47. On April 17, 1997, less than ten days after DC Comics received the Superman Notices, its counsel wrote to the Siegels counsel inviting negotiation. The Siegels requested that DC Comics make an initial settlement proposal. But prior to making such proposal, DC Comics requested that the parties enter into a confidentiality agreement. Frustrated by the Siegels delay in responding to its proposed form confidentiality agreement, on November 5, 1997, DC Comics counsel wrote the Siegels counsel and stated, inter alia, [a]s we had advised you in the past, our client has elected, for settlement purposes only, not to respond to the [Superman Notices] served upon them by challenging their validity or scope at this time. (Emphasis added.) 48. On December 17, 1997, DC Comics and the Siegels finally entered into a confidentiality agreement. On December 18, 1997, DC Comics forwarded its first substantive proposal with respect to the copyrights at issue, and in connection therewith also raised certain defects in the termination notice, stating that there is a substantial legal issue as to the effectiveness of your clients termination of DCs Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 646 Filed 02/17/11 Page 16 of 38 Page ID #:14214 EXHIBIT AA 415 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 16 of 84 Page ID #:37748 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
- 16 - SECOND AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS
interest in the Superman Comic. For more than six months despite repeated requests for feedback, DC Comics heard no response to its December 18, 1997 proposal. Finally, on June 19, 1998, the Siegels counsel sent a letter to DC Comics counsel that did not respond to the proposal but only requested more information. 49. On July 23, 1998, DC Comics provided the Siegels with the answers to the questions posed in their counsels letter of June 19, 1998. Despite requests for feedback for another several months, DC Comics again received no response to its proposal. 50. Having heard no response from the Siegels, on April 15, 1999, one day before the purported Effective Date set forth in the Superman-Notices, DC Comics provided a more comprehensive written notice to Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants Joanne Siegel and Laura Siegel Larson detailing, among other things, the reasons it considered the Superman Notices to be invalid. 51. On April 30, 1999, DC Comics received a letter from the firm of Gang, Tyre, Ramer & Brown, Inc. (Gang, Tyre) indicating it now represented the Siegels in negotiations with DC Comics. Thereafter, the parties engaged in extensive negotiations with their respective lawyers attending meetings in California and New York, and exchanging proposals. During that time period, at the Siegels request, DC Comics provided a payment of $250,000 (the Advance Payment) to the Siegels which payment was agreed to be an advance against any future sums provided under an agreement to be entered into between the parties. 52. On October 16, 2001, a legal representative for DC Comics made an offer to the Siegels through Gang, Tyre by telephone. On October 19, 2001, Kevin Marks of Gang, Tyre, on behalf of the Siegels, accepted the October 16, 2001 offer. That day, Mr. Marks wrote a letter confirming that the Siegels had accepted D.C. Comics offer of October 16, 2001 and outlined all of the material terms in detail. Those terms included, inter alia, that the Siegels transferred or would transfer all of Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 646 Filed 02/17/11 Page 17 of 38 Page ID #:14215 EXHIBIT AA 416 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 17 of 84 Page ID #:37749 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
- 17 - SECOND AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS
their rights in the Superman property (which was defined in the letter as Superman, Superboy and related properties including but not limited to Supergirl, Steel, Lois & Clark, and Smallville) and in The Spectre. In exchange, the Siegels were to receive: (a) a sizeable non-returnable advance; (b) a sizeable non-recoupable and non-returnable signing bonus; (c) forgiveness of the Advance Payment; (d) significant guaranteed minimum payments as advances against royalties; and (e) percentage royalties from DC Comics exploitations of Superman across all media, worldwide. 53. By return letter of October 26, 2001, DC Comics representative wrote back providing a more fulsome outline of the agreed upon points. Neither the Siegels nor any of their representatives in any way disputed the October 26, 2001 confirmatory outline from DC Comics. On February 1, 2002, DC Comics forwarded a draft of a more formal written agreement memorializing the terms agreed to in the October 19 and 26, 2001 correspondence. 54. After the October 2001 agreement, DC Comics entered into a written Option Purchase Agreement with Warner Bros., A Division of Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P. (now known as defendant Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.) dated as of November 6, 1999, pursuant to which DC Comics granted to Warner Bros. the option to license certain exclusive rights in Superman, and Warner Bros. has commenced photography of a feature-length motion picture based on the property. 55. On May 9, 2002, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant Joanne Siegel wrote a letter to the Co-Chief Operating Officer of DC Comics parent company acknowledging that the Siegels had accepted DC Comics proposal of October 16, 2002, but purporting to object to unspecified provisions of the formal written draft and repudiating the agreement reached by the parties in October 2001. To this day, the Siegels have not identified a single provision of the February 1, 2002 formal Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 646 Filed 02/17/11 Page 18 of 38 Page ID #:14216 EXHIBIT AA 417 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 18 of 84 Page ID #:37750 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
- 18 - SECOND AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS
draft that was inconsistent with the provisions in the Siegels October 19, 2001 acceptance of DC Comics proposal. 56. On September 30, 2002, however, DC Comics received a letter from the Siegels stating they were breaking off all discussions with DC Comics and again repudiating the agreement reached by the parties in October 2001. The Superboy Termination Notices 57. Notwithstanding the fact that the Siegels had already purported to terminate grants with respect to the Superboy character effective April 16, 1999, on November 8, 2002, the Siegels mailed to DC Comics another Notice of Termination of Transfer purporting to relate solely to Superboy (the Superboy Notice). The Superboy Notice purports to terminate, effective November 17, 2004, only two grants of copyright: (a) the May 19, 1948 Stipulation and (b) the December 23, 1975 Agreement, and identifies many of the same works identified in the Superman Notices. As was the case with the Superman Notices, the Siegels served no notice terminating the copyright grant in the May 21, 1948 Consent Agreement. 58. The Superboy Notice purports to terminate the above grants regarding the following works: (a) the unpublished November 30, 1938 Letter; (b) the unpublished 1940 Superboy Script; (c) More Fun Comics No. 101; and (d) approximately 1,600 additional titles. However, the Superboy Notice lists and purports to terminate grants of rights under copyright relating to hundreds of the same works already purportedly terminated by the earlier Superman Notices. The Superboy Notice does not purport to terminate the 1939 depiction of Superman as a youth in Superman No. 1. 59. In the Superboy Notice, the Siegels make the claim that Superboy is a separate and distinct copyrighted work and character from the copyrighted work and character Superman. This contention is erroneous. Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 646 Filed 02/17/11 Page 19 of 38 Page ID #:14217 EXHIBIT AA 418 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 19 of 84 Page ID #:37751 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
- 19 - SECOND AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS
60. In the Superboy Notices, the Siegels also claim that Jerome Siegel was the sole author of Superboy. This contention is also erroneous. 61. Among the works listed in the Superboy Notice that the Siegels claim are terminated by such notice of termination (as well as by the Superman Notices), is the WB television series entitled Smallville. Smallville is a modern, teen- oriented drama about the life and relationships of Clark Kent and his circle of friends during Clarks high school years; it features numerous characters not created or developed by Siegel and story lines wholly original to the series. 62. On June 17, 2004, talent agent Ari Emanuel, representing the Siegels, sent a letter to DC Comics licensee and affiliated company, Warner Bros., stating, inter alia, that as of the effective date of the Superboy Notice, November 17, 2004, DC Comics and its licensees would be cut off from making any further episodes of Smallville. 63. On August 4, 2004, the Siegels new counsel and attorney of record in this case, Marc Toberoff, contacted Warner Bros. and reiterated the Siegels position that, as of November 17, 2004, DC Comics and its licensees would be cut off from making any further episodes of Smallville. 64. On August 27, 2004, DC Comics counsel herein, Fross Zelnick Lehrman & Zissu, P.C., sent a letter to the Siegels counsel rejecting the interpretation of the effect of the Superboy Notice and unequivocally informing the Siegels that DC Comics and its licensees would proceed with their planned production, copying, distribution, and exploitation of new episodes of Smallville. The Siegels Filing Of Two Related Cases 65. On October 8, 2004, 14 days prior to filing the instant action, the Siegels filed a related action, Civil Case No. 04-8400, which case was assigned to Judge Pregerson in this Court. Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 646 Filed 02/17/11 Page 20 of 38 Page ID #:14218 EXHIBIT AA 419 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 20 of 84 Page ID #:37752 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
- 20 - SECOND AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS
FIRST COUNTERCLAIM FOR DECLARATION THAT THE SUPERMAN NOTICES AND THE SUPERBOY NOTICE ARE INEFFECTIVE 66. DC Comics repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 - 65 above as if fully set forth herein. 67. DC Comics contends that the Superman Notices and/or the Superboy Notice are ineffective, inter alia, for any or all of the following five independent reasons: #1 The May 21, 1948 Consent Agreement Has Not Been Terminated 68. The May 21, 1948 Consent Agreement is a written agreement entered into by Jerome Siegel and Joseph Shuster with DC Comics predecessor in interest and includes a grant of all rights in Superman and Superboy by Siegel and Shuster to DC Comics predecessor in interest, including all rights under copyright therein. 69. As a result of the Siegels failure to send a Notice of Termination with respect to the May 21, 1948 Consent Agreement, the grant contained therein to all copyrights related to Superman remains in full force and effect. Thus, DC Comics is and continues to be the sole owner of all rights of any kind, including rights under copyright, in Superman (including its derivative work Superboy) pursuant to the May 21, 1948 Consent Agreement. #2 The December 23, 1975 Agreement 70. Through both the Superman Notices and the Superboy Notice, the Siegels purport to terminate their share of the grant of copyright in Superman and Superboy contained in the December 23, 1975 Agreement. 71. By letter dated April 15, 1999, the day before the Superman Notice purported to become effective, DC Comics rejected the scope and validity of the Superman Notices, including but not limited to, that Superman Notice purporting to terminate the grant in the December 23, 1975 Agreement. Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 646 Filed 02/17/11 Page 21 of 38 Page ID #:14219 EXHIBIT AA 420 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 21 of 84 Page ID #:37753 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
- 21 - SECOND AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS
72. By letter dated August 29, 2004, DC Comics rejected the scope and validity of the Superboy Notice, including but not limited to the Siegels claim that such notice terminated the December 23, 1975 Agreement. 73. Notwithstanding the Siegels having, by virtue of the Superman Notices, purportedly terminated the grant of copyright contained in the December 23, 1975 Agreement, and with full knowledge of DC Comics rejection of the Superman Notice, after April 16, 1999, the purported effective date of such notices of termination, DC Comics continued to perform under the December 23, 1975 Agreement and Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant Joanne Siegel continued to accept the benefits under that agreement. DC Comics has relied upon Joanne Siegels continued acceptance of benefits under the December 23, 1975 Agreement and has continued to perform under that Agreement without accounting to the Siegels and without making any other change in the manner in which it has exploited Superman. 74. Notwithstanding the Siegels having, by virtue of the Superboy Notice, purportedly terminated the grant of copyright contained in the December 23, 1975 Agreement, and with full knowledge of DC Comics August 29, 2004 rejection of the notice of termination, DC Comics has continued to perform under the December 23, 1975 Agreement. DC Comics has relied upon Joanne Siegels continued acceptance of benefits under the December 23, 1975 Agreement and has continued to perform under that Agreement without accounting to the Siegels and without making any other change in the manner in which it has exploited Superboy. 75. Because of DC Comics continued performance under the December 23, 1975 Agreement and Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant Joanne Siegels continued acceptance of the benefits of such agreement after she purportedly terminated it in both the Superman Notices and the Superboy Notice, the December 23, 1975 Agreement, and the grant of copyright therein, remains in full force and effect. Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 646 Filed 02/17/11 Page 22 of 38 Page ID #:14220 EXHIBIT AA 421 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 22 of 84 Page ID #:37754 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
- 22 - SECOND AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS
76. Thus, DC Comics is and continues to be the sole owner of all rights of any kind, including rights under copyright, in Superman (and its derivative work Superboy), rendering the Superman Notices and the Superboy Notice ineffective. #3 The Unpublished Superboy Works 77. In the Superboy Notice, the Siegels purport to terminate copyright grants of rights in the November 1938 Letter and the Unpublished 1940 Superboy Script and approximately 1,600 additional published titles purportedly relating to Superboy (the Published Superboy Works). 78. Upon information and belief, as of January 1, 1978, both the November 1938 Letter and the Unpublished 1940 Superboy Script (the Siegel Superboy Proposals) remained unpublished and thus were neither in their first nor their second term of copyright as of that date. 79. Copyright in the Published Superboy Works is owned exclusively by DC Comics by virtue of their having been prepared as works made for hire for DC Comics and/or its predecessors, or by virtue of other copyright grants that remain in full force and effect. 80. Pursuant to the requirements set forth by section 304 (c) of the 1976 Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 304 (c), only copyright grants in works that were in their first or second term of copyright as of January 1, 1978, could be terminated under that provision. As a result, the Superboy Notice is ineffective as to the Siegel Superboy Proposals or any portion of any derivative works containing any copyrightable material therefrom and DC Comics remains the sole owner thereof. Therefore, the Superboy Notice is ineffective. #4 Siegel Owned No Copyright In Superboy 81. The Siegel Superboy Proposals are derivative works based upon the pre-existing copyrighted Superman character and stories owned by DC Comics predecessors. Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 646 Filed 02/17/11 Page 23 of 38 Page ID #:14221 EXHIBIT AA 422 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 23 of 84 Page ID #:37755 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
- 23 - SECOND AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS
82. Upon information and belief, Siegel, in collaboration with Shuster, prepared the Siegel Superboy Proposals without the prior knowledge or consent of DC Comics predecessors. 83. Upon further information and belief, Siegel developed the contents of the Siegel Superboy Proposals within the scope of his employment contracts with DC Comics predecessors and/or at their instance and expense and subject to their right to control. 84. As a result of the foregoing, the Siegel Superboy Proposals were derivative works based upon Superman, prepared without the authorization of the copyright owner, and/or were works made for hire, owned ab initio by the copyright owner in Superman. 85. Whether the Siegel Superboy Proposals were derivative works prepared without the prior authorization of the copyright owner, or were works made for hire, Siegel could not and did not own any copyright interest therein that would be subject to copyright termination pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 304 (c). Thus, the Superboy Notice is ineffective. #5 The Superman Notices Were Not Timely Served 86. Upon information and belief, DC Comics predecessor in interest first secured copyright in Action Comics No. 1 by publication with copyright notice prior to April 16, 1938. 87. All grants made by Siegel and Shuster or rights in Action Comics No. 1 are still in effect, and all rights under copyright granted therein are still owned exclusively by DC Comics, because the Superman Notices served by the Siegels are ineffective for failure to comply with the legal requirements therefore prescribed by section 304 (c) of the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. 304 (c), in that: the Effective date of the Superman Notices, namely April 16, 1999, was too late to fall within the required period specified in 17 U.S.C. 304 (c) (3) and such notices Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 646 Filed 02/17/11 Page 24 of 38 Page ID #:14222 EXHIBIT AA 423 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 24 of 84 Page ID #:37756 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
- 24 - SECOND AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS
of termination were served less than two years before the allowable effective date in violation of 17 U.S.C. 304 (c) (4) (A). 88. On information and belief, plaintiffs deny DC Comics contentions and/or the legal effect ascribed thereto as set forth in paragraphs 66 87 above. Accordingly, an actual controversy has arisen and now exists between Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants and DC Comics concerning the above issues. 89. A justiciable controversy exists concerning the above issues and a judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate to determine the parties respective rights with regard thereto. SECOND ALTERNATIVE COUNTERCLAIM FOR DECLARATION THAT ANY CLAIM BY THE SIEGELS FOR CO-OWNERSHIP OF SUPERMAN (INCLUDING ITS DERIVATIVE SUPERBOY) IS BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS 90. DC Comics repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 - 89 above as if fully set forth herein. 91. Since as early as 1998, Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants were on notice of DC Comics position that the Superman Notices contained legal defects. Moreover, effective at least as early as April 15, 1999, Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants were on notice that DC Comics rejected the Superman Notices and asserted exclusive ownership of all copyright in Superman. 92. Since April 16, 1999, the purported effective date of the Superman Notices, Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants have been deprived of the benefits of their purported co-ownership of copyright in Action Comics No. 1. 93. In response to DC Comics above actions and assertion and such deprivation to the Siegels of the benefits of their alleged copyright co-ownership, Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants took no action until filing the instant action on October 8, 2004, more than six years after DC Comics advised Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants in writing of defects in the Superman Notices Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 646 Filed 02/17/11 Page 25 of 38 Page ID #:14223 EXHIBIT AA 424 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 25 of 84 Page ID #:37757 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
- 25 - SECOND AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS
and more than five years after being placed on notice by DC Comics of its claim of exclusive ownership of copyright in Superman and that it rejected and repudiated the Superman Notices and during which time period the Siegels were deprived of benefits to which they claim they are entitled. 94. Because Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants claim of partial ownership of copyright accrued more than three years prior to Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants bringing the instant action, even taking into consideration any purported agreements to toll the statute of limitations, any claim of ownership of copyright in Superman by Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants is barred by the three-year statute of limitations of the Copyright Act. 95. On information and belief, plaintiffs deny DC Comics contentions and/or the legal effect ascribed thereto as set forth in paragraphs 90 94 above. Accordingly, an actual controversy has arisen and now exists between Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants and DC Comics concerning the above issues. 96. A justiciable controversy exists concerning the above issues and a judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate to determine the parties respective rights with regard thereto. THIRD ALTERNATIVE COUNTERCLAIM FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT 97. DC Comics repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 - 96 above as if fully set forth herein. 98. In or about October 2001, Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants entered into a written agreement with DC Comics memorialized by the authorized agent of Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants, Kevin Marks, and by the authorized agent of DC Comics, John Schulman, which subsequently was confirmed and ratified in writing by Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant Joanne Siegel (the Agreement), pursuant to which, among other things, Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants (1) transferred to DC Comics, worldwide and in perpetuity, or, alternatively, agreed to Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 646 Filed 02/17/11 Page 26 of 38 Page ID #:14224 EXHIBIT AA 425 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 26 of 84 Page ID #:37758 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
- 26 - SECOND AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS
transfer to DC Comics, worldwide and in perpetuity, any and all rights, title, and interest, including all United States copyrights, which they may have in any and all past, present, and future Superman and Superboy-related properties, works, characters, names, and trademarks (collectively, the Superman Works), (2) agreed to accept certain compensation from DC Comics in consideration of any and all rights, title, and interest which they may have in the Superman Works (the Financial Terms), and (3) covenanted never to sue DC Comics for any claim related to the Superman Works other than for breach of the Agreement (the Covenant Not To Sue). 99. DC Comics has performed all of its obligations under the Agreement, except to the extent such performance has been prevented or excused by the acts or omissions of Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants. Specifically, and without limiting the foregoing, DC Comics established a reserve account of the moneys due to Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants based upon the Financial Terms, which DC Comics would have paid to Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants pursuant to the Agreement but for their repudiation and breach of the Agreement as herein alleged. DC Comics always has been and remains ready, willing, and able to perform all of its obligations under the Agreement, and will resume doing so upon either a withdrawal by Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants of their repudiation of the Agreement or a final adjudication that the Agreement is enforceable and binding on the parties. 100. Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants have repudiated and otherwise breached the Agreement by, among other things: a. Claiming, including in this action, that they have not transferred and are not contractually obligated to transfer to DC Comics, worldwide and in perpetuity, all of their rights, title, and interest, including all United States copyrights, which they may have in the Superman Works, and refusing to execute a formal written transfer thereof to DC Comics; Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 646 Filed 02/17/11 Page 27 of 38 Page ID #:14225 EXHIBIT AA 426 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 27 of 84 Page ID #:37759 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
- 27 - SECOND AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS
b. Repudiating the Financial Terms and claiming, including in this action, that they are entitled to additional compensation for the Superman Works; and c. Initiating this action in violation of the Covenant Not To Sue. 101. As a direct and foreseeable result of the contractual breaches on the part of Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants herein alleged, DC Comics has been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial. FOURTH ALTERNATIVE COUNTERCLAIM FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF REGARDING THE AGREEMENT 102. DC Comics repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 - 101 above as if fully set forth herein. 103. An actual controversy now exists between DC Comics and Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants, in that DC Comics contends the Agreement is binding and enforceable and, therefore, that: a. Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants either have transferred or are contractually obligated to transfer to DC Comics, worldwide and in perpetuity, any and all rights, title, and interest, including all United States copyrights, which they may have in the Superman Works; b. If for any reason Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants are adjudged not to have transferred or not to be contractually obligated to transfer to DC Comics, worldwide and in perpetuity, all rights, title, and interest, including all United States copyrights, which they may have in the Superman Works, then the remaining terms of the Agreement are valid and enforceable and Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants are not entitled to any compensation for any past, present, or future exploitation of the Superman Works by or upon license from DC Comics other than pursuant to the Financial Terms; and c. If for any reason Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants are adjudged not to have transferred or not to be contractually obligated to transfer to Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 646 Filed 02/17/11 Page 28 of 38 Page ID #:14226 EXHIBIT AA 427 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 28 of 84 Page ID #:37760 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
- 28 - SECOND AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS
DC Comics, worldwide and in perpetuity, all rights, title, and interest, including all United States copyrights, which they may have in the Superman Works, then Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants nevertheless are not entitled to license or otherwise exploit the Superman Works in any manner. 104. DC Comics is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants dispute these contentions. 105. DC Comics seeks a judicial determination of the parties respective rights and obligations, which is necessary and appropriate to allow them to properly govern their future conduct. FIFTH ALTERNATIVE COUNTERCLAIM FOR DECLARATION OF LIMITATIONS ON THE SCOPE OF THE SUPERMAN NOTICES AND THE SUPERBOY NOTICE 106. DC Comics repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 - 65 above as if fully set forth herein. 107. In the event the Superman Notices and/or the Superboy Notice are deemed effective and the settlement agreement between the parties is not enforced, DC Comics asserts the following alternative counterclaim for a declaration limiting the scope and reach of the Superman Notices and the Superboy Notice in six separate and independent ways. 108. DC Comics contends that: #1 The Superman Ads 109. The regulations governing the contents of notices of termination promulgated by the U.S. Copyright Office under authority of the 1976 Copyright Act require, in relevant part, that a notice of termination served pursuant to section 304 (c) of the 1976 Copyright Act name each work to which the notice of termination applies. Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 646 Filed 02/17/11 Page 29 of 38 Page ID #:14227 EXHIBIT AA 428 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 29 of 84 Page ID #:37761 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
- 29 - SECOND AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS
110. Upon information and belief, all of the Superman Ads first secured copyright protection by publication with copyright notice prior to April 16, 1938 and prior to publication of Action Comics No. 1. 111. The Superman Ads contain and show the appearance of Superman, his costume, and his super-strength. 112. The grants made by Siegel and Shuster as to the appearance of Superman, his costume, and his super-strength, are still in effect, and all rights under copyright granted therein are still owned exclusively by DC Comics, because the Superman Notices served by the Siegels do not list the works in which the Superman Ads were first published. 113. Thus, DC Comics is the exclusive owner of all copyright in and to the Superman Ads and thereby retains exclusive ownership of copyright in the appearance of Superman therein, including but not limited to, the appearance of the Superman costume. #2 Use Of Superman And Superboy Derivative Works Prepared Prior To The Purported Effective Dates Of The Superman Notices And The Superboy Notice 114. The Superman Notices purport to terminate the Siegels share in the Copyright grant of Jerome Siegel in all Superman-related works thereafter derived from Action Comics No. 1, including but not limited to the more than 15,000 Superman related works (in addition to Action Comics No. 1) listed in the Superman Notices (the Superman Derivative Works). Included among the Superman Derivative Works is the image of the S in Shield Device that has become a strong trademark of Superman and his single source, DC Comics. 115. The Superboy Notice purports to terminate the Siegels share in the copyright grant of Jerome Siegel in the approximately 1,600 of the Published Superboy Works. Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 646 Filed 02/17/11 Page 30 of 38 Page ID #:14228 EXHIBIT AA 429 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 30 of 84 Page ID #:37762 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
- 30 - SECOND AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS
116. The Superman Derivative Works and the Published Superboy Works are all based upon pre-existing works and were prepared under the authority of the grants of copyright entered into by Siegel and Shuster to DC Comics and/or its predecessors. 117. Regardless of whether the Superman Notices and the Superboy Notice are legally effective, under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 304 (c)(6)(A), DC Comics retains the right to make use of the Superman Derivative Works and the Superboy Published Works under the terms of the original grants under which they were prepared without any duty to account to the Siegels for any such use. #3 DC Comics Owns All Superman Derivative Works 118. All copyright rights in any of the works listed in the Superman Notices, or any other derivative works based upon and that post-date Action Comics No. 1 (the Post Action Comics No. 1 Works) are owned exclusively by DC Comics. DC Comics ownership of such copyrights is not subject to termination pursuant to the Copyright Act. 119. The Post Action Comics No. 1 Works contain many copyrightable elements not present in Action Comics No. 1 (the Post Action Comics No. 1 Elements). These include, but are not limited to, new super powers, new villains, new components to the Superman universe, new elements in the Superman back story, and changes in the appearance of Superman. Notably, many of Supermans powers that are among his most famous today did not appear in Action Comics No 1 but only appeared later in the Post Action Comics No. 1 Works. 120. Regardless of whether the Superman Notices and the Superboy Notice are valid and effective, DC Comics remains the sole owner of the Post Action Comics No. 1 Works and in the Post Action Comics No. 1 Elements. Moreover, the Siegels can make no use of the Post Action Comics No. 1 Elements. Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 646 Filed 02/17/11 Page 31 of 38 Page ID #:14229 EXHIBIT AA 430 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 31 of 84 Page ID #:37763 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
- 31 - SECOND AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS
#4 Superboy Is A Derivative Work Based On Superman 121. In the November 1938, Letter suggesting the idea for a Superboy comic strip, Siegel stated such comic would relate to the adventures of Superman as a youth. In the Unpublished 1940 Superboy Script, Siegel wrote [s]o many faithful followers of todays leading adventure comic strip, SUPERMAN, wrote in demanding the adventures of Clark Kent as a youth . . .And so here he is at last...the answer to your requests...Americas outstanding boy hero: SUPERBOY! 122. As demonstrated by the foregoing, the Siegel Superboy Proposals were based upon the pre-existing Superman character and stories and are thus derivative works based thereon, and were not made at the instigation of Siegel. 123. Thus, even if the Superboy Notice were effective, any recapture of copyright rights would be limited to any new copyrightable subject matter added by Siegel and Shuster to the pre-existing Superman character and stories exclusively owned by DC Comics and its predecessors. 124. The new copyrightable subject matter contained in the Siegel Superboy Proposals is de minimis and thus, even if the Siegels could recapture U.S. Copyrights therein, such recapture could not affect DC Comics continuing right to create and exploit new derivative works that do not include such new copyrightable subject matter, including but not limited to, the television series Smallville. #5 The Derivative Work Superboy Is A Joint Work Of Authorship 125. Upon information and belief, the Siegel Superboy Proposals were joint works of authorship as they were prepared jointly with Shuster and because it was intended that their contents would be merged with artwork to create a comic book or comic strip. 126. As eventually published, the works containing the Superboy character included both artwork and storyline. Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 646 Filed 02/17/11 Page 32 of 38 Page ID #:14230 EXHIBIT AA 431 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 32 of 84 Page ID #:37764 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
- 32 - SECOND AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS
127. The joint authors share in the Siegel Superboy Proposals is owned by DC Comics and cannot be terminated either by the Superman Notices or the Superboy Notice. 128. As a result of the foregoing, DC Comics right to continue to exploit the Siegel Superboy Proposals and any derivative works based thereon cannot be affected by either the Superman Notices or the Superboy Notice. #6 Smallville Is Not Derived From Superboy 129. Among the derivative works based upon Superman and authorized b DC Comics is the weekly television series, Smallville. 130. Regardless of whether the Superboy Notice is effective and further regardless of whether Superboy is a derivative work based upon Superman, Smallville was derived from and based upon Superman and is not a derivative work based upon the Siegel Superboy Proposals or any succeeding Superboy comic or Superboy work exploited by DC Comics and/or its predecessors prior to May 21, 1948. Beyond sharing the idea of depicting Superman as a youth, Smallville is not substantially similar to the Siegel Superboy Works. 131. Thus, irrespective of any accounting issues relating to the Siegels purported right to receive compensation with respect to new episodes of Smallville, DC Comics right to continue to authorize production, distribution, and airing of Smallville television episodes remains unaffected by the Superman Notices and the Superboy Notice. #7 The Additional Action Comics No. 1 Materials 132. The Additional Action Comics No. 1 Materials created in 1938 were prepared at the instance and expense of DCI and subject to its right to control. Thus, under the 1909 Copyright Act, the Additional Action Comics No. 1 Materials were works made for hire and copyright therein was owned by DCI ab initio. 133. Because the Additional Action Comics No. 1 Materials were works made for hire, the grant of U.S. Copyright therein cannot be terminated pursuant to Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 646 Filed 02/17/11 Page 33 of 38 Page ID #:14231 EXHIBIT AA 432 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 33 of 84 Page ID #:37765 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
- 33 - SECOND AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS
17 U.S.C. 304 (c). As a result, DC Comics remains the sole owner of the Additional Action Comics No. 1 Materials. 134. On information and belief, plaintiffs deny DC Comics contentions and/or the legal effect ascribed thereto as set forth in paragraphs 106 - 133 above. Accordingly, an actual controversy has arisen and now exists between Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants and DC Comics concerning the above issues. 135. A justiciable controversy exists concerning the above issues and a judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate to determine the parties respective rights with regard thereto. SIXTH ALTERNATIVE COUNTERCLAIM FOR DECLARATION REGARDING THE PRINCIPLES TO BE APPLIED IN AN ACCOUNTING 136. DC Comics repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 - 65 and 106 - 135 above as if fully set forth herein. 137. DC Comics contends that in the event the Superman Notices and/or the Superboy Notice were deemed valid and effective, any accounting to which the Siegels would be entitled relating to Superman (including its derivative work Superboy, collectively for this Counterclaim Superman) would be subject to the following limitations and reductions: a. The Siegels would not be entitled to any revenues derived from exploitation of Superman outside of the United States because termination pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 304 (c) cannot affect any grant of non-United States copyrights. 17 U.S.C. 304 (c) (6) (E). b. The Siegels would not be entitled to any revenues derived from exploitation of the Superman Derivative Works and the Superboy Derivative Works. 17 U.S.C. 304 (c) (6) (A). Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 646 Filed 02/17/11 Page 34 of 38 Page ID #:14232 EXHIBIT AA 433 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 34 of 84 Page ID #:37766 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
- 34 - SECOND AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS
c. Any accounting of profits for exploitation of Superman would be reduced to account for the value of the appearance of Superman based upon the Siegels failure to terminate the Superman Ads. d. Any accounting of recoverable profits for exploitation of Superman would be reduced to that portion of such profits that are attributable to the copyrightable elements from Action Comics No. 1 less the Additional Action Comics No. 1 Materials (if any), actually present it the Superman works subject to accounting. e. Any accounting of recoverable profits would be limited to profits of DC Comics, the sole owner of rights under any purportedly terminated grants and the sole owner of copyright in Action Comics No. 1, and the Siegels would not be entitled to any share of revenues earned by any third party licensees of DC Comics, including but not limited to, any of the other defendants. f. The Siegels would not be entitled to any accounting for profits attributable to DC Comics continuing exercise of its rights to use all other rights other than rights under copyright with respect to Superman and Superboy, including but not limited to, any trademark rights. As a result, any accounting of profits would be further reduced by the value in Superman and the Superman Marks that have been built up by DC Comics and its predecessors over the last six decades by virtue of, inter alia, the Post Action Comics No. 1 Works and Elements, and the Superman Marks Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 646 Filed 02/17/11 Page 35 of 38 Page ID #:14233 EXHIBIT AA 434 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 35 of 84 Page ID #:37767 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
- 35 - SECOND AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS
g. Any accounting of profits would be further reduced by additional factors, including but not limited to, DC Comics direct and indirect expenses, taxes, and DC Comics independent role as a publisher of Superman. h. Subject to all reductions aforesaid and otherwise determined by the Court to be applicable, the Siegels would be entitled to an accounting of only one-half of the copyright co-owners profits. 138. On information and belief, plaintiffs deny DC Comics contentions and/or the legal effect ascribed thereto as set forth above. Accordingly, an actual controversy has arisen and now exists between Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants and DC Comics as to the above issues. 139. A justiciable controversy exists concerning the above issues and a judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate to determine the parties respective rights with regard thereto. WHEREFORE, DC Comics demands judgment as follows: 1. Declaring that the Superman Notices and the Superboy Notice are ineffective for one or more of the reasons set forth in DC Comics First Counterclaim; 2. In the event that the Superman Notices and/or the Superboy Notice are deemed effective, for damages according to proof at trial on DC Comics Third Alternative Counterclaim; 3. In the event that the Superman Notices and/or the Superboy Notice are deemed effective, declaring on DC Comics Fourth Alternative Counterclaim that, pursuant to the Agreement: a. Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants have transferred or are contractually obligated to transfer to DC Comics, worldwide and in perpetuity, any and all rights, title, and interest, including all United States copyrights, which they may have in the Superman Works; Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 646 Filed 02/17/11 Page 36 of 38 Page ID #:14234 EXHIBIT AA 435 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 36 of 84 Page ID #:37768 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
- 36 - SECOND AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS
b. In the event that Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants are adjudged not to have transferred or not to be contractually obligated to transfer to DC Comics, worldwide and in perpetuity, all rights, title, and interest, including all United States copyrights, which they may have in the Superman Works, then the remaining terms of the Agreement are valid and enforceable and Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants are not entitled to any compensation for any past, present, or future exploitation of the Superman Works by or upon license from DC Comics other than pursuant to the Financial Terms; and c. In the event that Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants are adjudged not to have transferred or not to be contractually obligated to transfer to DC Comics, worldwide and in perpetuity, all rights, title, and interest, including all United States copyrights, which they may have in the Superman Works, then Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants nevertheless are not entitled to license or otherwise exploit the Superman Works in any manner; 4. In the event that the Superman Notices and/or the Superboy Notice are deemed effective, and DC Comics is not granted the relief sought on its Fourth Alternative Counterclaim, declaring that the scope and effect of the Superman Notices and the Superboy Notice are limited as set forth in DC Comics Fifth Alternative Counterclaim; 5. In the event that the Superman Notices and/or the Superboy Notice are deemed effective, and DC Comics is not granted the relief sought on its Fourth Alternative Counterclaim, declaring that any accounting to which Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants may be entitled will be limited by all applicable principles, including but not limited to, those set forth in DC Comics Sixth Alternative Counterclaim; 6. Awarding DC Comics its costs and reasonably attorneys fees incurred in connection with DC Comics defenses and claims herein seeking declarations with respect to copyright ownership; and Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 646 Filed 02/17/11 Page 37 of 38 Page ID #:14235 EXHIBIT AA 436 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 37 of 84 Page ID #:37769 Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 646 Filed 02/17/11 Page 38 of 38 Page ID #:14236 EXHIBIT AA 437 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 38 of 84 Page ID #:37770
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS CONSOLIDATED MOTION TO DISMISS
Marc Toberoff (State Bar No. 188547) mtoberoff@ipwla.com Keith G. Adams (State Bar No. 240497) kgadams@ipwla.com TOBEROFF & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 2049 Century Park East, Suite 3630 Los Angeles, California, 90067 Telephone: (310) 246-3333 Fax: (310) 246-3101
Attorneys for Defendants Mark Warren Peary, as personal representative of the Estate of Joseph Shuster, Jean Adele Peavy, and Laura Siegel Larson, individually and as personal representative of the Estate of Joanne Siegel
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - WESTERN DIVISION DC COMICS, Plaintiff, vs.
PACIFIC PICTURES CORPORATION; IP WORLDWIDE, LLC; IPW, LLC; MARC TOBEROFF, an individual; MARK WARREN PEARY, as personal representative of the ESTATE OF JOSEPH SHUSTER; JEAN ADELE PEAVY, an individual; LAURA SIEGEL LARSON, individually and as personal representative of the ESTATE OF JOANNE SIEGEL, and DOES 1-10, inclusive,
Defendants. Case No: CV 10-03633 ODW (RZx)
Hon. Otis D. Wright II, U.S.D.J. Hon. Ralph Zarefsky, U.S.M.J.
DEFENDANTS REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF CONSOLIDATED MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6)
Complaint filed: May 14, 2010 Trial Date: None Set
Date: November 14, 2011 Time: 1:30 p.m. Place: Courtroom 11
Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW -RZ Document 333-1 Filed 10/14/11 Page 1 of 10 Page ID #:21903 EXHIBIT BB 438 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 39 of 84 Page ID #:37771
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS CONSOLIDATED MOTION TO DISMISS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
KENDALL BRILL & KLIEGER LLP Richard B. Kendall (State Bar No. 90072) rkendall@kbkfirm.com Laura W. Brill (State Bar No. 195889) lbrill@kbkfirm.com Nicholas F. Daum (State Bar No. 236155) ndaum@kbkfirm.com 10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 1725 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-2700 Facsimile: (310)556-2705
Attorneys for Defendants Marc Toberoff, Pacific Pictures Corporation, IP Worldwide, LLC, and IPW, LLC Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW -RZ Document 333-1 Filed 10/14/11 Page 2 of 10 Page ID #:21904 EXHIBIT BB 439 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 40 of 84 Page ID #:37772
1 A August 1, 1992 Agreement between DC Comics and Frank Shuster & Jean Peavy
8 B November 23, 2001 Agreement between Pacific Pictures Corporation and Mark Warren Peary & Jean Adele Peavy
9 C October 3, 2002 Agreement between IP Worldwide, Inc. and Joanne Siegel & Laura Siegel Larson
13 D October 27, 2003 Agreement between Pacific Pictures Corporation and Mark Warren Peary
17 E Notice of Termination re: Copyright Renewal Term of Superman, served by the Estate of Joseph Shuster, recorded with the U.S. Copyright Office on December 3, 2003.
21 F September 10, 2004 letter between Pacific Pictures Corporation and Mark Warren Peary & Jean Adele Peavy
37 G November 15, 2006 letter from Marc Toberoff to DC Comics, in the related case Siegel v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., et al., USDC Case No. CV-04-8400-ODW (RZx)
38 H Cover Pages, Exhibit Lists and Exhibits from the November 17, 2006 deposition of Marc Toberoff, in the related Siegel case
41 I December 30, 2008 Declaration of DC Comics Counsel, attaching May 2, 2008 Letter, in the related Siegel case
58 J May 17, 2011 Judgment (Docket No. 669) in the related Siegel case 62 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW -RZ Document 333-1 Filed 10/14/11 Page 3 of 10 Page ID #:21905 EXHIBIT BB 440 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 41 of 84 Page ID #:37773
1 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS CONSOLIDATED MOTION TO DISMISS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Pursuant to Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, defendants Mark Warren Peary, as personal representative of the Estate of Joseph Shuster, Jean Adele Peavy, Laura Siegel Larson, individually and as personal representative of the Estate of Joanne Siegel, Marc Toberoff, Pacific Pictures Corporation, IP Worldwide, LLC, and IPW, LLC (Defendants), respectfully request that this Court take judicial notice of the following documents, submitted in support of Defendants Consolidated Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff DC Comics Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). In ruling on a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), a court may consider matters subject to judicial notice. See Neilson v. Union Bank of California, N.A., 290 F. Supp. 2d 1101, 1111-12 (C.D. Cal. 2003) (In deciding a motion to dismissa court may considermatters that may be judicially noticed pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201.); Haye v. United States, 461 F.Supp. 1168, 1174 (C.D. Cal. 1978) (Subsection (d) [of Rule 201] makes the taking of judicial notice mandatory if the Court is so requested and supplied with the necessary information.). 1
1. Defendants request that the Court take judicial notice of the agreement between Plaintiff DC Comics (DC), on the one hand, and Frank Shuster and Jean Peavy, on the other hand, dated as of August 1, 1992 (the 1992 Shuster Agreement). A true and correct copy of the 1992 Shuster Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit A. On a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), courts are permitted to consider documents incorporated by reference in the complaint. United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2003) (Even if a document is not attached to a complaint, it may be incorporated by reference into a complaint if the plaintiff refers extensively to
1 See generally In re Calpine Corp. Sec. Litig., 288 F. Supp. 2d 1054, 1076 (N.D. Cal. 2003) ([T]he Court may take judicial notice of documents on which allegations in the [complaint] necessarily rely, even if not expressly referenced in the [complaint], provided the authenticity of those documents are not in dispute.); Parrino v. FHP Healthcare, Inc., 146 F.3d 699, 706 (9th Cir. 1998) (stating judicial notice prevents plaintiffs from surviving a Rule 12(b)(6) motion by deliberately omitting references to documents upon which their claims are based.). Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW -RZ Document 333-1 Filed 10/14/11 Page 4 of 10 Page ID #:21906 EXHIBIT BB 441 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 42 of 84 Page ID #:37774
2 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS CONSOLIDATED MOTION TO DISMISS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 the document or the document forms the basis of the plaintiffs claim.); Von Koenig v. Snapple Beverage Corp., 2010 WL 1980208 (E.D. Cal. May 10, 2010) (where parties requested judicial notice of juice and tea bottle labels and labels formed the basis of the relevant causes of action, court considered labels for the purpose of defendants motion to dismiss). See generally Parrino v. FHP, Inc., 146 F.3d 699, 705-706 (9th Cir. 1997) (holding that documents critical to plaintiffs claims, but not explicitly incorporated in his complaint may be judicially noticed and considered by a district court on a motion to dismiss). As the 1992 Shuster Agreement is referred to throughout DCs first amended complaint (FAC) in this action (see, e.g., FAC 3-4, 6, 51-55, 112-117, 125-128, 175-179) and is the basis in part of Plaintiffs First and Second Claims for Relief, it is proper for the Court to consider the 1992 Shuster Agreement on Defendants motion to dismiss. 2. Defendants request that the Court take judicial notice of the agreement between Pacific Pictures Corporation (PPC), on the one hand, and Jean Peavy and Mark Warren Peary, on the other hand, made as of November 23, 2001 (the 2001 PPC Agreement). The 2001 PPC Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit B. On a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), courts consider documents incorporated by reference in the complaint. Ritchie, 342 F.3d at 908; Von Koenig, 2010 WL 1980208. As the 2001 PPC Agreement is referred to throughout the Plaintiffs FAC in this action (see, e.g., FAC 3, 6, 11, 60-65, 90, 98-99, 120, 132, 169, 177-178, 192-193) and is an alleged basis for Plaintiffs First, Third, Fourth and Sixth Claims for Relief, it is proper for the Court to consider the 2001 PPC Agreement on Defendants motion to dismiss. 3. Defendants request that the Court take judicial notice of the agreement between IP Worldwide, Inc., on the one hand, and Joanne Siegel and Laura Siegel Larson, on the other hand, dated as of October 3, 2002 (the 2002 IPWW Agreement). The 2002 IPWW Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit C. On a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), courts consider documents incorporated by Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW -RZ Document 333-1 Filed 10/14/11 Page 5 of 10 Page ID #:21907 EXHIBIT BB 442 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 43 of 84 Page ID #:37775
3 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS CONSOLIDATED MOTION TO DISMISS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 reference in the complaint. Ritchie, 342 F.3d at 908; Von Koenig, 2010 WL 1980208. As the 2002 IPWW Agreement is referred to throughout Plaintiffs FAC in this action (see, e.g., FAC 3, 8, 81-84, 188, 193) and is an alleged basis of Plaintiffs Third, Fifth and Sixth Claims for Relief, it is proper for the Court to consider the 2002 IPWW Agreement on Defendants motion to dismiss. 4. Defendants request that the Court take judicial notice of the agreement between PPC, on the one hand, and Jean Peavy and Mark Warren Peary, on the other hand, dated October 27, 2003 (the 2003 PPC Agreement). The 2003 PPC Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit D. On a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), courts consider documents incorporated by reference in the complaint. Ritchie, 342 F.3d at 908; Von Koenig, 2010 WL 1980208. As the 2003 PPC Agreement is referred to throughout Plaintiffs FAC in this action (see, e.g., FAC 3, 10-11, 90, 92, 98-99, 101, 120, 130, 132, 169, 177-178, 192-193) and is an alleged basis of Plaintiffs First, Third, Fourth and Sixth Claims for Relief, it is proper for the Court to consider the 2003 PPC Agreement on Defendants motion to dismiss. 5. Defendants request that the Court take judicial notice of the Notice of Termination of Transfer Covering Extended Copyright Renewal Term of Superman (the Shuster Termination) served by Mark Warren Peary, as personal representative of the Estate of Joseph Shuster, on Plaintiff DC Comics, among others, on November 10, 2003 and recorded with the U.S. Copyright Office on December 3, 2003. A true and correct copy of the Notice of Termination and Certificate of Recordation with the U.S. Copyright Office is attached hereto as Exhibit E. On a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), courts are permitted to consider documents incorporated by reference in the complaint. Ritchie, 342 F.3d at 908; Von Koenig, 2010 WL 1980208. As the Notice of Termination is referred to throughout plaintiffs FAC in this action (see, e.g., FAC 92-101, 105-164) and is an alleged basis of Plaintiffs First, Second and Fourth Claims for Relief, it is proper for the Court to consider the Notice of Termination on Defendants motion to dismiss. Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW -RZ Document 333-1 Filed 10/14/11 Page 6 of 10 Page ID #:21908 EXHIBIT BB 443 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 44 of 84 Page ID #:37776
4 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS CONSOLIDATED MOTION TO DISMISS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Moreover, the Court may take judicial notice of such records from the U.S. Copyright Office. See Island Software & Computer Serv., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 413 F.3d 257, 261 (2d Cir. 2005) (taking judicial notice of copyright registrations); MGIC Indem. Corp. v. Weisman, 803 F.2d 500, 504 (9th Cir. 1986) (holding that on a motion to dismiss a court may take judicial notice of matters of public record outside the pleadings). 6. Defendants request that the Court take judicial notice of the agreement between PPC, on the one hand, and Jean Peavy and Mark Warren Peary, on the other hand, dated September 10, 2004 (the 2004 PPC Agreement). The 2004 PPC Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit F. On a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), courts consider documents incorporated by reference in the complaint. Ritchie, 342 F.3d at 908; Von Koenig, 2010 WL 1980208. As the 2004 PPC Agreement is referred to throughout Plaintiffs FAC in this action (see, e.g., FAC 99, 121, 169, 171-172, 177-178) and an alleged basis of Plaintiffs First, Third, Fourth and Sixth Claims for Relief, it is proper for the Court to consider the 2004 PPC Agreement on Defendants motion to dismiss. 7. Defendants request that the Court take judicial notice that DC Comics was in possession of the 2001 and 2003 PPC Agreements, and the 2002 IPWW Agreement on or before November 17, 2006. Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence permits a court to take judicial notice of a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). Subsection (d) [of Rule 201] makes the taking of judicial notice mandatory if the Court is so requested and supplied with the necessary information. Haye v. United States, 461 F. Supp. 1168, 1174 (C.D. Cal. 1978). That the 2001 and 2003 PPC Agreements and 2002 IPWW Agreement were produced to DC in the closely- related case Siegel v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., C.D. Cal. Case No. 04-CV- 08400 ODW (RZx) (Siegel) is not subject to reasonable dispute. Such agreements, Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW -RZ Document 333-1 Filed 10/14/11 Page 7 of 10 Page ID #:21909 EXHIBIT BB 444 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 45 of 84 Page ID #:37777
5 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS CONSOLIDATED MOTION TO DISMISS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 attached hereto as Exhibits B, C and D, respectively, were Bates stamped as follows: 2001 PPC Agreement: PPC 00005-00008 2003 PPC Agreement: PPC 00001-00004 2002 IPWW Agreement: IPW 00001-00004 See also November 15, 2006 letter from Marc Toberoff to counsel for DC, including facsimile cover sheet, attached hereto as Exhibit G, enclosing the document productions Bates-stamped IPW 00001-00016 and PPC 00001-00009; Werner v. Werner, 267 F.3d 288, 295-296 (3d Cir. 2001) (determination on a motion to dismiss of whether defendants produced corporate meeting minutes during discovery in related state court action is capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned by [defendants]). Moreover, it cannot be disputed that DC Comics had possession of the 2001 and 2003 PPC Agreements, and the 2002 IPWW Agreement on or before November 17, 2006, as they were introduced as exhibits by DC Comics in its deposition of Marc Toberoff in Siegel, which took place on November 17, 2006. See cover pages and exhibits list of the transcript of the deposition of Marc Toberoff and documents stamped as Exhibits 13, 14, & 18 thereto, attached hereto as Exhibit H; Brodsky v. Yahoo! Inc., 630 F. Supp. 2d 1104, 1111 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (court takes judicial notice on a motion to dismiss of conference call transcripts for the fact that statements were made on the dates specified). 8. Defendants request that the Court take judicial notice of a letter from attorney Marc Toberoff to DCs attorney Michael Bergman dated May 2, 2008, which was Exhibit B to the Declaration of Michael Bergman in Support of DCs Motion to Compel filed on December 30, 2008 (Docket Nos. 395-1, 395-2) in the related Siegel case. A true and correct copy of the December 30, 2008 Declaration of Michael Bergman and the May 2, 2008 Letter, as redacted by DCs counsel, is attached hereto as Exhibit I. It is proper for the Court to take judicial notice of proceedings and determinations of prior related litigation. 1-201 Weinsteins Federal Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW -RZ Document 333-1 Filed 10/14/11 Page 8 of 10 Page ID #:21910 EXHIBIT BB 445 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 46 of 84 Page ID #:37778
6 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS CONSOLIDATED MOTION TO DISMISS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Evidence 201.12[3] (Courts have the power to judicially recognize their own records of prior litigation closely related to the present case). See Stein v. State of Arizona, 2010 WL 2541136 (D. Ariz. June 18, 2010) (on motion to dismiss, taking judicial notice of plaintiffs sentencing documents and release order in related criminal case against plaintiff) (citing Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1198 (9th Cir. 1988)); Reyns Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 741, 746 n.6 (9th Cir. 2006) (taking judicial notice, as a matter of public record, of briefs, pleadings, memoranda, expert reports from related litigation); Kourtis v. Cameron, 419 F.3d 989, 1001 (9th Cir. 2005) ([C]ourt records from related proceedings can be taken into account without converting a motion to dismiss into a summary judgment motion), abrogated on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (2008). 9. Defendants request that the Court take judicial notice of the Judgment dated May 17, 2011 (Docket No. 669), that this Court entered in the related Siegel case. A true and correct copy of the Judgment is attached hereto as Exhibit J. It is proper for the Court to take judicial notice of proceedings and determinations of prior related litigation. 1-201 Weinsteins Federal Evidence 201.12[3]. See Stein, 2010 WL 2541136 (citing Emrich, 846 F.2d at 1198); Reyns Pasta Bella, LLC, 442 F.3d at 746 n.6. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 201, and for the reasons set forth above, Defendants respectfully request that this Court take judicial notice of the documents described above. Dated: October 14, 2011 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, /s/ Laura Brill Laura Brill
KENDALL BRILL & KLIEGER LLP Attorneys for Defendants Marc Toberoff, Pacific Pictures Corporation, IP Worldwide, LLC, and IPW, LLC
Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW -RZ Document 333-1 Filed 10/14/11 Page 9 of 10 Page ID #:21911 EXHIBIT BB 446 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 47 of 84 Page ID #:37779
7 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS CONSOLIDATED MOTION TO DISMISS
TOBEROFF & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Attorneys for Defendants Mark Warren Peary, as personal representative of the Estate of Joseph Shuster, Jean Adele Peavy, and Laura Siegel Larson, individually and as personal representative of the Estate of Joanne Siegel
Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW -RZ Document 333-1 Filed 10/14/11 Page 10 of 10 Page ID #:21912 EXHIBIT BB 447 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 48 of 84 Page ID #:37780 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
DC RESPONSE TO DEFS REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE ISO MOT. TO DISMISS
DANIEL M. PETROCELLI (S.B. #097802) dpetrocelli@omm.com MATTHEW T. KLINE (S.B. #211640) mkline@omm.com CASSANDRA L. SETO (S.B. #246608) cseto@omm.com OMELVENY & MYERS LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, 7th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-6035 Telephone: (310) 553-6700 Facsimile: (310) 246-6779
PATRICK T. PERKINS (admitted pro hac vice) pperkins@ptplaw.com PERKINS LAW OFFICE, P.C. 1711 Route 9D Cold Spring, NY 10516 Telephone: (845) 265-2820 Facsimile: (845) 265-2819
Attorneys for Plaintiff DC
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DC COMICS,
Plaintiff,
v.
PACIFIC PICTURES CORPORATION, IP WORLDWIDE, LLC, IPW, LLC, MARC TOBEROFF, an individual, MARK WARREN PEARY, as personal representative of the ESTATE OF JOSEPH SHUSTER, JEAN ADELE PEAVY, an individual, LAURA SIEGEL LARSON, an individual and as personal representative of the ESTATE OF JOANNE SIEGEL, and DOES 1-10, inclusive,
Defendants.
Case No. CV 10-3633 ODW (RZx) DC COMICS RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT ON CONSOLIDATED MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) (Docket No. 331- 1)
Complaint Filed: May 14, 2010 Discovery Cutoff: None Set Trial Date: None Set
Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW -RZ Document 335 Filed 10/24/11 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:22081 EXHIBIT CC 448 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 49 of 84 Page ID #:37781 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
- 1 - DC RESPONSE TO DEFS REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE ISO MOT. TO DISMISS
Plaintiff DC Comics hereby responds to defendants Request for Judicial Notice In Support of Consolidated Motion To Dismiss Pursuant To Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Docket No. 331-1. DC does not oppose the Court taking judicial notice of the evidence requested by defendants and would have told defendants as much had they contacted DC before filing the request. DC does object to defendants efforts, yet again, Docket No. 328, to evade the Courts page limitation on Rule 12 briefing by repeating and augmenting their Rule 12 arguments in the body of their request for judicial notice. E.g., Docket No. 331-1 at 4-5. Such additional argument should be stricken and are further grounds to deny defendants re-filed Rule 12 motion. Dated: October 24, 2011
Respectfully Submitted, By: /s/ Daniel M. Petrocelli Daniel M. Petrocelli
Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW -RZ Document 335 Filed 10/24/11 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:22082 EXHIBIT CC 449 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 50 of 84 Page ID #:37782 1 Patricia Perello From: cacd_ecfmail@cacd.uscourts.gov Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 8:33 PM To: ecfnef@cacd.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW -RZ DC Comics v. Pacific Pictures Corporation et al Response (non-motion) This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not apply. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Notice of Electronic Filing
The following transaction was entered by Petrocelli, Daniel on 10/24/2011 at 8:32 PM PDT and filed on 10/24/2011 Case Name: DC Comics v. Pacific Pictures Corporation et al Case Number: 2:10-cv-03633-ODW -RZ Filer: DC Comics Document Number: 335 Docket Text: RESPONSE filed by Plaintiff DC Comics to Defendants' Request For Judicial Notice [333] (Petrocelli, Daniel)
2:10-cv-03633-ODW -RZ Notice has been electronically mailed to:
Cassandra L Seto cseto@omm.com, swatson@omm.com
Daniel M Petrocelli dpetrocelli@omm.com
Keith Gregory Adams kgadams@ipwla.com
Laura W Brill lbrill@kbkfirm.com, docket@kbkfirm.com, jcontreras@kbkfirm.com
Marc Toberoff mtoberoff@ipwla.com
Matthew T Kline mkline@omm.com
Nathalie E Cohen ncohen@kbkfirm.com, docket@kbkfirm.com
Nicholas Calvin Williamson nwilliamson@ipwla.com EXHIBIT CC 450 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 51 of 84 Page ID #:37783 2
Nicholas Frederic Daum ndaum@kbkfirm.com, docket@kbkfirm.com
Patrick T Perkins pperkins@ptplaw.com
Richard B Kendall rkendall@kbkfirm.com, docket@kbkfirm.com, ghunter@kbkfirm.com
2:10-cv-03633-ODW -RZ Notice has been delivered by First Class U. S. Mail or by other means to: : The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:C:\fakepath\10-24-11 DC's Response to Def's RJN.pdf Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP cacdStamp_ID=1020290914 [Date=10/24/2011] [FileNumber=12505082- 0] [ada63944ff848646d2e37153047f39f0d570d7804d6e3d66dadc35322006ec150e 36d110b6a905fe8794d8638926944dc20b2a2ebce551921bca000c1dc319ff]]
EXHIBIT CC 451 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 52 of 84 Page ID #:37784 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Circuit Mediation Office Phone (415) 355-7900 Fax (415) 355-8566 http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/mediation MEDIATION QUESTIONNAIRE The purpose of this questionnaire is to help the courts mediators provide the best possible mediation service in this case; it serves no other function. Responses to this questionnaire are not confidential. Appellants/Petitioners must electronically file this document within 7 days of the docketing of the case. 9th Cir. R. 3-4 and 15-2. Appellees/Respondents may file the questionnaire, but are not required to do so. 9th Circuit Case Number(s): District Court/Agency Case Number(s): District Court/Agency Location: Case Name: v. If District Court, docket entry number(s) of order(s) appealed from: Name of party/parties submitting this form: Please briefly describe the dispute that gave rise to this lawsuit. Briefly describe the result below and the main issues on appeal. 11-56934 CV-10-3633 Central District of California, Western Division DC Comics Pacific Pictures Corporation, et al. 337 Defendants, Pacific Pictures Corp. et al. Attorney Marc Toberoff represents the heirs of Superman's co-creators, Siegel and Shuster, in long-standing copyright litigation with DC Comics (DC) and its parent, Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. (Warner), which commenced in 2004. After years of litigation, Mr. Toberoff won key victories on behalf of his clients in Siegel v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., C.D. Cal. Case No. 04-CV-08400, 542 F. Supp. 2d 1098 (C.D. Cal. 2008) (the Siegel Case), vindicating the heirs' right pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 304(c) to terminate Siegel and Shusters old Superman copyright grants to DC. DC retaliated by filing baseless state-law claims for tortious interference against Mr. Toberoff and entities with which he has been affiliated to obtain economic leverage over Mr. Toberoff and his long-time clients. Mr. Toberoff contends that the claims arise from protected activity, including his efforts to assist the heirs in vindicating their rights under federal copyright law. On August 13, 2010, defendants moved to strike DCs Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Claims pursuant to Californias Anti-SLAPP statute; that motion was vacated on September 7, 2010, when DC filed an amended complaint. On September 20, 2010, defendants filed a new Anti-SLAPP motion as to DCs amended complaint; that motion was vacated on October 14, 2010 after full briefing. On January 14, 2011, defendants refiled their Anti-SLAPP motion, and the parties then re-submitted their briefing in January 2011. On March 9, 2011, the District Court ordered the parties to once again re-submit their briefing, which the parties did in March 2011. On June 1, 2011, at DCs request, the District Court ordered the parties to file new opposition and reply briefs, which the parties did in August 2011. On October 25, 2011, the District Court denied the Anti-SLAPP motion on the grounds that DC's Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Claims were not subject to the Anti-SLAPP statute. That order is immediately appealable pursuant to Batzel v. Smith, 333 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2003). Case: 11-56934 11/09/2011 ID: 7961209 DktEntry: 3-1 Page: 1 of 2 EXHIBIT DD 452 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 53 of 84 Page ID #:37785 Page 2 of 2 Describe any proceedings remaining below or any related proceedings in other tribunals. Provide any other thoughts you would like to bring to the attention of the mediator. Any party may provide additional information in confidence directly to the Circuit Mediation Office at ca09_mediation@ca9.uscourts.gov. Please provide the case name and Ninth Circuit case number in your message. Additional information might include interest in including this case in the mediation program, the cases settlement history, issues beyond the litigation that the parties might address in a settlement context, or future events that might affect the parties willingness or ability to mediate the case. CERTIFICATION OF COUNSEL I certify that: a current service list with telephone and fax numbers and email addresses is attached (see 9th Circuit Rule 3-2). I understand that failure to provide the Court with a completed form and service list may result in sanctions, including dismissal of the appeal. Signature ("s/" plus attorney name may be used in lieu of a manual signature on electronically-filed documents.) Counsel for Note: Use of the Appellate ECF system is mandatory for all attorneys filing in this Court, unless they are granted an exemption from using the system. To file this form electronically in Appellate ECF, complete the form, and then print the filled-in form to PDF (File > Print > PDF Printer/Creator). Then log into Appellate ECF and choose Forms/Notices/Disclosure > File a Mediation Questionnaire. The statutory termination rights of Siegels heirs regarding Superman were litigated in the closely related Siegel Case. The District Court held that the Siegels termination was valid as to the first Superman story published in Action Comics, No. 1 and other original Superman works. The case was then transferred to Judge Otis Wright on November 20, 2009. Thereafter, a F.R.C.P. 54(b) judgment was entered, and the remainder of the case was stayed pending an appeal by both sides of the Rule 54(b) judgment, currently before the Ninth Circuit, Case No. 11-55863. In this action, C.D. Cal. Case No. 10-CV-3633, the District Court found that defendants had waived privilege on numerous attorney-client communications that had been stolen from Mr. Toberoffs law firm and delivered to Warner because Mr. Toberoff had produced the documents to the U.S. Attorneys Office, pursuant to a grand jury subpoena and confidentiality agreement, as a condition of their investigation/prosecution of this crime. That order is currently before this Circuit on a writ proceeding, Case No. 11-71844. DC has taken the position that while this appeal is pending, it is entitled to pursue discovery on claims at issue in this appeal, as well as interrelated federal claims asserted in its complaint. The parties engaged in formal mediation sessions before the Hon. Daniel Weinstein (Ret.) in May-June 2008, September 2009 and April 2010. The parties' efforts were unsuccessful. DC thereafter filed this action in May 2010. The parties have scheduled a further mediation for December 1, 2011. /s/ Marc Toberoff Laura Siegel Larson, Jean Adele Peavy and Mark Warren Peary Case: 11-56934 11/09/2011 ID: 7961209 DktEntry: 3-1 Page: 2 of 2 EXHIBIT DD 453 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 54 of 84 Page ID #:37786 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1 SERVICE LIST
SERVICE LIST OMELVENY & MYERS LLP Daniel M. Petrocelli dpetrocelli@omm.com Matthew T. Kline mkline@omm.com Cassandra L. Seto cseto@omm.com 1999 Avenue of the Stars, 7th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-6035 Telephone: (310) 553-6700 Facsimile: (310) 246-6779
Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee, DC Comics
PERKINS LAW OFFICE, P.C. Patrick T. Perkins pperkins@ptplaw.com 1711 Route 9D Cold Spring, NY 10516 Telephone: (845) 265-2820 Facsimile: (845) 265-2819
Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee, DC Comics
TOBEROFF & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Marc Toberoff mtoberoff@ipwla.com Keith G. Adams kgadams@ipwla.com 2049 Century Park East, Suite 3630 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (310) 246-3333 Facsimile: (310) 246-3101
Attorneys for Defendants-Appellants, Mark Warren Peary, as personal representative of the Estate of Joseph Shuster, Jean Adele Peavy, and Laura Siegel Larson, individually and as personal representative of the Estate of Joanne Siegel KENDALL BRILL & KLIEGER LLP Richard B. Kendall (State Bar No. 90072) rkendall@kbkfirm.com Laura W. Brill (State Bar No. 195889) lbrill@kbkfirm.com Nicholas F. Daum (State Bar No. 236155) ndaum@kbkfirm.com 10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 1725 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-2700 Facsimile: (310)556-2705
Attorneys for Defendants-Appellants, Marc Toberoff, Pacific Pictures Corporation, IP Worldwide, LLC, and IPW, LLC
Case: 11-56934 11/09/2011 ID: 7961209 DktEntry: 3-2 Page: 1 of 1 EXHIBIT DD 454 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 55 of 84 Page ID #:37787 1 Patricia Perello From: ca9_ecfnoticing@ca9.uscourts.gov Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 7:37 PM To: Docket Subject: 11-56934 DC Comics v. Pacific Pictures Corporation, et al "File a Mediation Questionnaire" ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Notice of Docket Activity
The following transaction was entered on 11/09/2011 at 7:37:17 PM PST and filed on 11/09/2011 Case Name: DC Comics v. Pacific Pictures Corporation, et al Case Number: 11-56934 Document(s): Document(s)
Docket Text: Filed (ECF) Appellants Laura Siegel Larson, Mark Warren Peary and Jean Adele Peavy Mediation Questionnaire. Date of service: 11/09/2011. [7961209] (MT)
The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document Description: Main Document Original Filename: DC v. PPC.Appeal.Anti-SLAPP.Mediation_Questionnaire.11.9.2011.print.pdf Electronic Document Stamp: [STAMP acecfStamp_ID=1106763461 [Date=11/09/2011] [FileNumber=7961209-0] [1ded8e517f31d672ca0cf9ffc7066cda7a63dfab676b54f552fd56a6741c4f9952c431b27850aa3be7eefe74c423a2 d157725c1b4bd2be083a49552e780e2d7c]]
Document Description: Service List Original Filename: DC v. PPC.Appeals.Anti-SLAPP.Service-List.11.9.2011.pdf Electronic Document Stamp: [STAMP acecfStamp_ID=1106763461 [Date=11/09/2011] [FileNumber=7961209-1] [06e2f6f60b42b9ef94b30e7da187dd9ef98a094e499c2f1148d7b032054c9357d4974829b9ac56a8123f0f699d4f0 868362882fa635d397d8f6c728ddb5d11d7]]
Notice will be electronically mailed to:
Petrocelli, Daniel Mr. Kendall, Richard B., Attorney EXHIBIT DD 455 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 56 of 84 Page ID #:37788 2 Brill, Laura W. Toberoff, Marc Mr. Kline, Matthew T. Ms. Seto, Cassandra Mr. Perkins, Patrick Mr. Daum, Nicholas Frederic, Attorney Mr. Adams, Keith Gregory, Attorney EXHIBIT DD 456 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 57 of 84 Page ID #:37789
DEFENDANT MARC TOBEROFFS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF DC COMICS SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
TOBEROFF & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Marc Toberoff (State Bar No. 188547) mtoberoff@ipwla.com Keith G. Adams (State Bar No. 240497) kgadams@ipwla.com Pablo D. Arredondo (State Bar No. 241142) parredondo@ipwla.com 22631 Pacific Coast Highway, #348 Malibu, California, 90265 Telephone: 310.246.3333 Facsimile: 310.246.3101
Attorneys for Defendants Marc Toberoff, Pacific Pictures Corporation, IP Worldwide, LLC, and IPW, LLC
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - WESTERN DIVISION DC COMICS, Plaintiff, vs.
PACIFIC PICTURES CORPORATION; IP WORLDWIDE, LLC; IPW, LLC; MARC TOBEROFF, an individual; MARK WARREN Peary, as personal representative of the ESTATE OF JOSEPH SHUSTER; JEAN ADELE PEAVY, an individual; LAURA SIEGEL LARSON, individually and as personal representative of the ESTATE OF JOANNE SIEGEL, and DOES 1-10, inclusive,
Defendants. Case No: CV 10-03633 ODW (RZx)
Hon. Otis D. Wright II, U.S.D.J.
DEFENDANT MARC TOBEROFFS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF DC COMICS SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Complaint Filed: May 14, 2010 Trial Date: None Set
EXHIBIT EE 457 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 58 of 84 Page ID #:37790
1 DEFENDANT MARC TOBEROFFS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Defendant Marc Toberoff (Defendant) responds as follows to the Second Set of Interrogatories dated January 24, 2012 (the Interrogatories) propounded by plaintiff DC Comics (Plaintiff or DC). I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Defendant will construe the terms YOU and YOUR to refer to Marc Toberoff. No incidental or implied admissions are intended by Defendants responses to the Interrogatories. The supplying of any fact does not constitute an admission by Defendant that such fact is relevant or admissible. The fact that Defendant has responded to any interrogatory is not intended to be and shall not be construed as a waiver by Defendant of all or any part of any objection to any interrogatory. Defendant reserves until the time of trial all objections as to the relevance or admissibility of any facts provided in its answers to the Interrogatories. The responses set forth herein are based on information now available to Defendant and Defendant reserves the right to revise, correct, add, clarify or supplement the general and specific objections and responses set forth herein. II. RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES Subject to, and without waiving the qualifications above, Defendant responds to each individual Interrogatory as follows: Interrogatory No. 26 DESCRIBE in detail all efforts YOU have made to MARKET any rights involving SUPERMAN and/or SUPERBOY. Response to Interrogatory No. 26 Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome and oppressive. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably limited in scope. Defendant objects to EXHIBIT EE 458 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 59 of 84 Page ID #:37791
2 DEFENDANT MARC TOBEROFFS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 this request to the extent that it seeks information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant and admissible evidence. Defendant additionally objects to this request to the extent that it seeks communications or items protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine and any other privilege or immunity available under law or arising from contractual obligation. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Defendant responds, without limitation, as follows: In 2004, Ari Emanuel and Marc Toberoff engaged in negotiations with Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. regarding the sale and/or license of Joanne Siegel and Laura Siegel Larsons (the Siegels) rights in Superman and Superboy to Warner. However Warner Bros. proposed terms that were virtually identical to its settlement proposal to the Siegels in 2001-2002, which they had rejected. The Siegels once again rejected such proposal. Subsequently, there have been settlement discussions with DC Comics/Warner Bros. in DC Comics v. Pacific Pictures Corp., Case No. 10-CV-03633, Siegel v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., Case No. 04-CV-08400 ODW (RZx), and Siegel v. Time Warner Inc. et al., Case No. 04-CV-08776 ODW (RZx). Mediation sessions were held with Hon. Daniel Weinstein (Ret.) of JAMS in May-June 2008, September 2009 and April 2010, and with Judge Weinstein and Kenneth Ziffren in December 2011. The mediation has yet to result in a settlement, however, discussions are ongoing. On December 4, 2008, in an in-person meeting with Peter Schlessel, then President of Worldwide Affairs for Sony Pictures Entertainment, Marc Toberoff discussed the potential license to Sony Pictures Entertainment of the Superman rights recaptured by the Siegels. They had a follow-up telephone conversation several weeks later. In April-May 2010, Marc Toberoff discussed the potential license to Paramount Pictures of the Superman rights recaptured by the Siegels with Rob EXHIBIT EE 459 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 60 of 84 Page ID #:37792
3 DEFENDANT MARC TOBEROFFS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Moore, Vice Chairman of Paramount Pictures, and his support staff. There was an initial telephone call including John Fogelman, Marc Toberoff, and Rob Moore on April 21, 2010; a further call including John Fogelman, Marc Toberoff and Rob Moore on April 29, 2010; and an in-person meeting including John Fogelman, Marc Toberoff and Rob Moore on May 12, 2010 at the Paramount Pictures lot. In addition, there were various e-mails exchanged between April 21 and May 11, 2010. On November 19, 2010, in an in-person meeting with Tom Rothman, CEO of Fox Filmed Entertainment, and his support staff, Marc Toberoff discussed the potential license to Filmed Entertainment of the Superman rights recaptured by the Siegels. Interrogatory No. 27 IDENTIFY any PERSONS with whom YOU have COMMUNICATED in connection with efforts to MARKET any rights involving SUPERMAN and/or SUPERBOY. Response to Interrogatory No. 27 Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome and oppressive. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably limited in scope. Defendant objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant and admissible evidence. Defendant additionally objects to this request to the extent that it seeks communications or items protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine and any other privilege or immunity available under law or arising from contractual obligation. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Defendant responds, without limitation, as follows: Laura Siegel Larson, c/o Toberoff & Associates, P.C., 22631Pacific Coast Highway, Suite #348, Malibu, California 90265. Joanne Siegel, deceased. EXHIBIT EE 460 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 61 of 84 Page ID #:37793
4 DEFENDANT MARC TOBEROFFS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Mark Warren Peary and Jean Adele Peavy, c/o Toberoff & Associates, P.C., 22631 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite #348, Malibu, California 90265. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc./DC Comics, including John Schulman, Wayne Smith, Paul Levitz, Dianne Nelson and John Rogovin, 4000 Warner Boulevard, Burbank, California, 91522, as well as outside counsel for the same. William Morris Endeavor, including Ari Emanuel and John Fogelman, 9601 Wilshire Boulevard, Beverly Hills, California 90212. Sony Pictures Entertainment, including its then President of Worldwide Affairs Peter Schlessel, 10202 West Washington Boulevard, Culver City, California 90232. Paramount Pictures Corporation, including its then Vice-Chairman Robert Moore, 5555 Melrose Avenue, Hollywood, CA, 90038. Fox Filmed Entertainment Group, including its then Chief Executive Officer, Thomas Rothman, 10201 W. Pico Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90035. Interrogatory No. 28 DESCRIBE in detail when any efforts YOU have made to MARKET any rights involving SUPERMAN and/or SUPERBOY took place. Response to Interrogatory No. 28 Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome and oppressive. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably limited in scope. Defendant objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant and admissible evidence. Defendant additionally objects to this request to the extent that it seeks communications or items protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine and any other privilege or immunity available under law or arising from contractual obligation. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Defendant responds, without limitation, as follows: As to discussions with Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. and DC Comics, from EXHIBIT EE 461 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 62 of 84 Page ID #:37794
5 DEFENDANT MARC TOBEROFFS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2003 to the present. As to discussions with Sony Pictures Entertainment, December 2008. As to discussions with Paramount Pictures, April-May 2010. As to discussions with Fox Filmed Entertainment Group, November 19, 2010. Interrogatory No. 29 DESCRIBE in detail all COMMUNICATIONS YOU have had with actual or potential INVESTORS concerning rights involving SUPERMAN and/or SUPERBOY. Response to Interrogatory No. 29 Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome and oppressive. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably limited in scope. Defendant objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant and admissible evidence. Defendant additionally objects to this request to the extent that it seeks communications or items protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine and any other privilege or immunity available under law or arising from contractual obligation. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Defendant responds, without limitation, as follows: Beginning in or around March 2002, and sporadically since then, Marc Toberoff has had discussions with Ari Emanuel concerning potential INVESTORS, including Mr. Emanuel himself, in Superman rights recaptured by the Siegels. On December 4, 2008, in an in-person meeting with Peter Schlessel, then President of Worldwide Affairs for Sony Pictures Entertainment, Marc Toberoff discussed the potential license to Sony Pictures Entertainment of the Superman rights recaptured by the Siegels. They had a follow-up telephone conversation several weeks later. EXHIBIT EE 462 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 63 of 84 Page ID #:37795
6 DEFENDANT MARC TOBEROFFS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 In April-May 2010, Marc Toberoff discussed the potential sale and/or license of the Superman rights recaptured by the Siegels with Rob Moore, Vice Chairman of Paramount Pictures and his support staff. There was an initial telephone call including John Fogelman, Marc Toberoff, and Rob Moore on April 21, 2010; a further call including John Fogelman, Marc Toberoff and Rob Moore on April 29, 2010; and an in-person meeting including John Fogelman, Marc Toberoff and Rob Moore on May 12, 2010 at the Paramount lot. In addition, there were various e-mails exchanged between April 21 and May 11, 2010. On November 19, 2010, in an in-person meeting with Tom Rothman, CEO of Fox Filmed Entertainment, and his support staff, Marc Toberoff discussed the potential license of the Superman rights recaptured by the Siegels. Interrogatory No. 30 IDENTIFY any PERSON with whom YOU have COMMUNICATED concerning actual or potential INVESTORS in rights involving SUPERMAN and/or SUPERBOY. Response to Interrogatory No. 30 Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome and oppressive. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably limited in scope. Defendant objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant and admissible evidence. Defendant additionally objects to this request to the extent that it seeks communications or items protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine and any other privilege or immunity available under law or arising from contractual obligation. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Defendant responds, without limitation, as follows: William Morris Endeavor, including Ari Emanuel and John Fogelman, 9601 Wilshire Boulevard, Beverly Hills, California 90212. EXHIBIT EE 463 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 64 of 84 Page ID #:37796
7 DEFENDANT MARC TOBEROFFS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Sony Pictures Entertainment, including its then President of Worldwide Affairs Peter Schlessel, 10202 West Washington Boulevard, Culver City, California 90232. Paramount Pictures Corporation, including its then Vice-Chairman Robert Moore, 5555 Melrose Avenue, Hollywood, CA, 90038. Fox Filmed Entertainment Group, including its then Chief Executive Officer, Thomas Rothman, 10201 W. Pico Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90035. Interrogatory No. 31 DESCRIBE in detail when YOU have COMMUNICATED with actual or potential INVESTORS concerning rights involving SUPERMAN and/or SUPERBOY. Response to Interrogatory No. 31 Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome and oppressive. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably limited in scope. Defendant objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant and admissible evidence. Defendant additionally objects to this request to the extent that it seeks communications or items protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine and any other privilege or immunity available under law or arising from contractual obligation. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Defendant responds, without limitation, as follows: With Ari Emanuel, since March, 2002, sporadic and ongoing. With Sony Pictures Entertainment, on December 4, 2008. With Paramount Pictures, April-May 2010. With Fox Filmed Entertainment Group, on November 19, 2010.
EXHIBIT EE 464 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 65 of 84 Page ID #:37797
8 DEFENDANT MARC TOBEROFFS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: February 23, 2012 TOBEROFF & ASSOCIATES
/s/ Keith G. Adams Keith G. Adams Attorneys for Defendants
EXHIBIT EE 465 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 66 of 84 Page ID #:37798
9 DEFENDANT MARC TOBEROFFS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 VERIFICATION I declare under penalty of perjury that on information and belief the facts set forth in the foregoing answers to the Interrogatories are true to the best of my present knowledge and belief.
DATED: February 23, 2012
Marc Toberoff
Print Name of Signatory Signature
EXHIBIT EE 466 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 67 of 84 Page ID #:37799 In The Matter Of: DCCOMICS v. PACIFICPICTURESCORPORATION ___________________________________________________ TOBEROFF,MARCVol.1 September18,2012 _____________________________________________ EXHIBIT FF 467 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 68 of 84 Page ID #:37800 MARC TOBEROFF - 9/18/2012 Los Angeles - 800-826-0277 www.merrillcorp.com/law Merrill Corporation - Los Angeles Page 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DC COMICS, ) ) Plaintiff, )No. )CV-10-3633 ODW (RZx) VS. ) ) PACIFIC PICTURES CORPORATION,) IP WORLDWIDE, LLC, IPW, LLC, ) MARC TOBEROFF, an individual,) Laura Siegel Larson, as ) personal representative of ) the ESTATE OF JOSEPH SHUSTER,) JEAN ADELE PEAVY, an ) individual, JOANNE SIEGEL, ) an individual, LAURA SIEGEL ) LARSON, an individual, and ) DOES 1-10, inclusive, ) ) Defendants. ) ) __________) VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF MARC TOBEROFF TAKEN ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2012 Reported by: SHANDA GABRIEL CSR No. 10094 EXHIBIT FF 468 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 69 of 84 Page ID #:37801 MARC TOBEROFF - 9/18/2012 Los Angeles - 800-826-0277 www.merrillcorp.com/law Merrill Corporation - Los Angeles Page 2 1 Videotaped deposition of MARC TOBEROFF, 2 taken on behalf of the Plaintiff, at 1999 Avenue of 3 the Stars, Los Angeles, California, commencing at 4 9:25 a.m., TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2012, before 5 SHANDA GABRIEL, CSR No. 10094. 6 7 APPEARANCES: 8 FOR THE PLAINTIFF: 9 O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 10 BY: DANIEL M. PETROCELLI, ESQ. 11 JASON TOKORO, ESQ. 12 1999 Avenue of the Stars 13 7th Floor 14 Los Angeles, California 90067-6035 15 (310) 553-6700 16 09:25:49 FOR THE TOBEROFF ENTITY DEFENDANTS and MARC 17 09:25:49 TOBEROFF: 18 KENDALL BRILL & KLIEGER LLP 19 BY: RICHARD B. KENDALL, ESQ. 20 10100 Santa Monica Boulevard 21 Suite 1725 22 Los Angeles, California 90067 23 (310) 556-2700 24 25 ALSO PRESENT: FRITZ SPERBERG, VIDEOGRAPHER EXHIBIT FF 469 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 70 of 84 Page ID #:37802 MARC TOBEROFF - 9/18/2012 Los Angeles - 800-826-0277 www.merrillcorp.com/law Merrill Corporation - Los Angeles Page 5 1 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; 2 TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2012 3 9:25 A.M. 4 5 THE REPORTER: I am making the following 6 statements pursuant to Rule 30(b)(5) of the Federal 7 Rules of Civil Procedure: 8 My name is Shanda Gabriel, C.S.R. 10094, 9 the videographer is Fritz Sperberg, both contracted 10 by Merrill Corporation, 20750 Ventura Boulevard, 11 Suite 205, Woodland Hills, California. 12 Today's date is September 18, 2012, the 13 time is 9:25 a.m. and this deposition is being held 14 at 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Los Angeles, 15 California. 16 Would counsel please state your appearances 17 09:25:39 and whom you represent: 18 09:25:39 MR. PETROCELLI: Daniel Petrocelli for 19 09:25:40 plaintiff, DC Comics. 20 09:25:42 MR. TOKORO: Jason Tokoro for plaintiff, DC 21 09:25:44 Comics. 22 09:25:44 MR. KENDALL: Richard Kendall on behalf of 23 09:25:47 the Toberoff entity defendants and Marc Toberoff. 24 THE REPORTER: The witness is Marc 25 Toberoff. EXHIBIT FF 470 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 71 of 84 Page ID #:37803 MARC TOBEROFF - 9/18/2012 Los Angeles - 800-826-0277 www.merrillcorp.com/law Merrill Corporation - Los Angeles Page 6 1 Would you please raise your right hand to 2 be sworn in. 3 MARC TOBEROFF, 4 having been first duly sworn, was 5 examined and testified as follows: 6 7 EXAMINATION 8 BY MR. PETROCELLI: 9 09:26:02 Q. I will address you as Mr. Toberoff for the 10 09:26:06 purpose of the deposition, if that's all right with 11 09:26:08 you. 12 09:26:08 A. I won't be offended. 13 09:26:11 Q. Can you tell us what your educational 14 09:26:15 background is? 15 09:26:16 A. I went to -- starting with what, college? 16 09:26:16 Q. Yeah. 17 09:26:22 A. I went to McGill University, and then in my 18 09:26:28 third year I transferred to Princeton, and then I 19 09:26:37 didn't -- I missed my girlfriend, essentially, and 20 09:26:41 transferred -- decided to go back to McGill and 21 09:26:45 graduated from McGill after being at Princeton, I 22 09:26:47 think, for -- between a half a year and a year. I'm 23 09:26:51 not sure. 24 09:26:51 Q. What year did you graduate? 25 09:26:53 A. In 1977. EXHIBIT FF 471 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 72 of 84 Page ID #:37804 MARC TOBEROFF - 9/18/2012 Los Angeles - 800-826-0277 www.merrillcorp.com/law Merrill Corporation - Los Angeles Page 27 1 09:52:34 of these entities? 2 09:52:36 A. I think basically whoever was the line 3 09:52:38 producer or primary producer of the picture. 4 09:52:43 Q. And these are projects in which you had 5 09:52:44 some kind of participation? 6 09:52:44 MR. KENDALL: Vague and ambiguou- -- 7 09:52:44 THE WITNESS: Yes. 8 09:52:47 MR. KENDALL: Vague and ambiguous. 9 09:52:48 BY MR. PETROCELLI: 10 09:52:54 Q. IP Worldwide, that was a limited liability 11 09:52:58 company? 12 09:52:58 A. Yes. 13 09:53:00 Q. And who were its members? 14 09:53:01 A. Myself and Ari Emanuel. 15 09:53:08 Q. And was Endeavor at the time also a member? 16 09:53:11 A. I believe Endeavor -- I believe Endeavor 17 09:53:16 may have had some equity in it. I believe 10 18 09:53:18 percent. 19 09:53:19 Q. Did -- 20 09:53:20 A. I'm not sure whether they were a member or 21 09:53:22 whether they simply were entitled to a percentage of 22 09:53:25 proceeds. 23 09:53:26 Q. A 10 percent contractual interest? 24 09:53:28 A. Right. 25 09:53:30 Q. Okay. Did IP Worldwide get replaced EXHIBIT FF 472 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 73 of 84 Page ID #:37805 MARC TOBEROFF - 9/18/2012 Los Angeles - 800-826-0277 www.merrillcorp.com/law Merrill Corporation - Los Angeles Page 174 1 14:39:42 A. I'd have to look at whether the 2003 PPC 2 14:39:47 agreement, what effect that had on this agreement. 3 14:39:53 But if that didn't have -- if that didn't effect 4 14:39:55 this provision, then it would be until we replaced 5 14:40:02 this agreement with a legal retainer dated as of 6 14:40:05 November 23rd, 2001. 7 14:40:06 Q. But signed when? 8 14:40:09 A. Signed in -- I think it was 2004. 9 14:40:11 Q. Okay. We'll get to that one. 10 14:40:22 Is it fair to say in 2001 when PPC entered 11 14:40:26 into this joint venture agreement with Jean Peavy 12 14:40:28 and Mark Peary, you understood that in a legal 13 14:40:38 retainer agreement, you as a lawyer would not be 14 14:40:41 permitted to include a provision that said that the 15 14:40:44 client requires your consent to settle, correct? 16 14:40:50 MR. KENDALL: Objection. Calls for a legal 17 14:40:50 conclusion. Incomplete hypothetical. 18 14:41:00 THE WITNESS: I know that's the case 19 14:41:01 sitting here today. I can't -- I can't -- I don't 20 14:41:04 have a -- I don't have a specific knowledge of 21 14:41:08 whether I knew that in 2001. 22 14:41:08 BY MR. PETROCELLI: 23 14:41:10 Q. Do you have any reason to believe you 24 14:41:11 didn't know that in 2001? 25 14:41:17 A. I don't have a reason to believe either EXHIBIT FF 473 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 74 of 84 Page ID #:37806 MARC TOBEROFF - 9/18/2012 Los Angeles - 800-826-0277 www.merrillcorp.com/law Merrill Corporation - Los Angeles Page 265 1 17:10:29 starting with that 2001 form of agreement and even 2 17:10:33 under the 2003 agreement it was just simpler to have 3 17:10:39 a simple retainer. 4 17:10:40 And the idea was to replace -- to cancel 5 17:10:42 and replace that agreement with this retainer 6 17:10:44 agreement. That's why it was both dated as of the 7 17:10:47 exact same date. 8 17:10:49 Q. Was it prepared, that is Exhibit 20 and 9 17:10:56 Exhibit 21, at or about the time of commencement of 10 17:10:58 litigation in the Siegel case? 11 17:11:04 A. I think it was prepared before that. 12 17:11:05 Q. The Siegel litigation was in October 2004? 13 17:11:07 A. When we filed the Siegel lawsuit? 14 17:11:13 Q. Yes. 15 17:11:13 A. It was either October or November. I -- I 16 17:11:16 would -- it would be helpful to know the date when I 17 17:11:20 entered into the Siegel litigation retainer 18 17:11:22 agreement. I didn't know whether that was -- if 19 17:11:29 that was around September 10, 2004. 20 17:11:37 Q. Take a look at that document which has also 21 17:11:40 been produced to us in redacted form. It's dated 22 17:11:43 October 3, 2004. 23 17:11:48 THE WITNESS: October 3, 2004? 24 17:11:50 MR. PETROCELLI: Yeah. That will be marked 25 17:11:51 as Exhibit 103. EXHIBIT FF 474 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 75 of 84 Page ID #:37807 MARC TOBEROFF - 9/18/2012 Los Angeles - 800-826-0277 www.merrillcorp.com/law Merrill Corporation - Los Angeles Page 268 1 17:15:24 others to consummate a settlement? 2 17:15:26 A. I don't believe that had any requirement of 3 17:15:37 any other consent than Joanna and Laura to a 4 17:15:44 settlement. 5 17:15:44 Q. Any such requirement -- 6 17:15:46 A. I don't believe the Shuster retainer 7 17:15:48 agreement has that also. But in your -- your -- I 8 17:15:56 don't have the unredacted agreement in front of me 9 17:15:59 to verify that. 10 17:16:00 Q. And that requirement after 2004, the first 11 17:16:06 time that requirement came into existence was in 12 17:16:08 2008 when the parties signed the consent agreement? 13 17:16:14 MR. KENDALL: What requirement? 14 17:16:15 MR. PETROCELLI: The requirement for the 15 17:16:16 consent of another to consummate a settlement. 16 17:16:23 THE WITNESS: Well, again, we're getting 17 17:16:25 into an area of where we assert a privilege, and 18 17:16:27 privilege has been upheld, so my answer is without 19 17:16:30 waiver of privilege, same agreement, correct? 20 17:16:30 BY MR. PETROCELLI: 21 17:16:33 Q. Yes. 22 17:16:33 A. Okay. And I'm also discussing what has 23 17:16:37 already been disclosed, which is essentially -- and 24 17:16:41 now I've forgotten the question. So I prepared -- I 25 17:16:45 prepared the record to answer the question. EXHIBIT FF 475 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 76 of 84 Page ID #:37808 MARC TOBEROFF - 9/18/2012 Los Angeles - 800-826-0277 www.merrillcorp.com/law Merrill Corporation - Los Angeles Page 269 1 17:16:46 Q. My question was the first time that a 2 17:16:48 requirement for the consent of another to consummate 3 17:16:51 a settlement was 2008, after the 2004 agreements? 4 17:16:57 A. With respect to the Siegels and Shusters? 5 17:16:57 Q. Yes. Correct. 6 17:16:57 A. Yes. 7 17:17:01 Q. Is the consent -- 8 17:17:10 A. But I would answer that more specifically, 9 17:17:13 it's not the consent of another. You're technically 10 17:17:15 correct, but it's basically mutual consent of the 11 17:17:19 Siegels and Shusters to a settlement of their 12 17:17:21 termination interests. 13 17:17:22 Q. Did they receive -- 14 17:17:25 A. Not my consent. 15 17:17:28 Q. Your consent is not required at all? 16 17:17:30 A. Absolutely not. 17 17:17:31 Q. And not any entity associated with you? 18 17:17:34 A. Correct. 19 17:17:34 Q. Okay. And no third party, it's just the 20 17:17:39 Siegels and the Shusters? 21 17:17:39 A. Correct. 22 17:17:40 Q. Okay. Is -- is it both Mark -- 23 17:17:51 A. And -- and -- 24 17:17:53 Q. -- Warren Peary and Jean? 25 17:17:54 A. I was just about to say that the -- the EXHIBIT FF 476 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 77 of 84 Page ID #:37809 MARC TOBEROFF - 9/18/2012 Los Angeles - 800-826-0277 www.merrillcorp.com/law Merrill Corporation - Los Angeles Page 270 1 17:17:58 consent, I believe, is the executor. 2 17:18:04 Q. On the Shuster side? 3 17:18:05 A. I believe so. 4 17:18:08 Q. And on the Siegel side? 5 17:18:09 A. I'm not 100 percent certain. 6 17:18:11 On the Siegel side it was Laura and Joanne. 7 17:18:14 Q. Now it's just Laura? 8 17:18:15 A. Correct. 9 17:18:19 Q. Did -- you said that there was a conflict 10 17:18:24 waiver signed by Peary in or about 2008, I believe? 11 17:18:34 A. Yes. 12 17:18:35 Q. What prompted that? 13 17:18:35 A. The consent agreement. 14 17:18:37 MR. KENDALL: Just a minute. I think we're 15 17:18:38 getting into a slightly different area. 16 17:18:40 So, again, I just want to caution you on 17 17:18:43 privilege. And I assume we have the same 18 17:18:47 understanding, that it will not be a waiver, so 19 17:18:49 you'll just have to make a determination whether 20 17:18:51 you -- you want to provide this information since it 21 17:18:55 may be privileged. 22 17:18:56 MR. PETROCELLI: I believe he answered the 23 17:18:58 question. He said "the consent agreement." 24 17:19:06 MR. KENDALL: So he did, but that's because 25 17:19:07 he didn't give me an opportunity to object first and EXHIBIT FF 477 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 78 of 84 Page ID #:37810 MARC TOBEROFF - 9/18/2012 Los Angeles - 800-826-0277 www.merrillcorp.com/law Merrill Corporation - Los Angeles Page 271 1 17:19:10 give him a caution first. 2 17:19:10 BY MR. PETROCELLI: 3 17:19:12 Q. Do you know whether the Shusters received 4 17:19:16 independent legal advice regarding the conflict 5 17:19:22 waiver or the consent agreement? 6 17:19:23 A. I don't know whether they did or did not. 7 17:19:27 Q. And do you know whether the Siegels did? 8 17:19:32 A. I believe the Siegels did. 9 17:19:34 Q. Do you know the name of the attorney? 10 17:19:35 A. George Zadorozny. 11 17:19:40 Q. George Zadorozny? 12 17:19:42 A. And I don't -- they may have -- I know that 13 17:19:46 whenever it came to something like that, they would 14 17:19:48 run it by George Zadorozny and/or George Zadorozny 15 17:19:54 and Arthur Levine or just George Zadorozny. 16 17:19:58 Q. Did you send copies of the consent 17 17:20:00 agreement to George or Arthur? 18 17:20:06 A. No, that wasn't the practice. 19 17:20:08 MR. KENDALL: Marc, take your hand away 20 17:20:09 from your face because it interferes with the 21 17:20:12 projection of your voice. 22 17:20:13 THE WITNESS: Okay. 23 17:20:13 BY MR. PETROCELLI: 24 17:20:16 Q. It also detracts from your -- your 25 17:20:18 appearance. EXHIBIT FF 478 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 79 of 84 Page ID #:37811 MARC TOBEROFF - 9/18/2012 Los Angeles - 800-826-0277 www.merrillcorp.com/law Merrill Corporation - Los Angeles Page 272 1 17:20:18 A. Sophisticated demeanor. 2 17:20:23 Q. I know you said that Zadorozny would be 3 17:20:28 involved in certain matters. 4 17:20:30 A. "Zadorozny." 5 17:20:31 Q. "Zadorozny." 6 17:20:31 A. Yeah. 7 17:20:34 Q. Do you know for certain if he was involved 8 17:20:37 in the -- for the Siegels with respect to the 2008 9 17:20:45 consent agreement? 10 17:20:46 A. Not 100 percent certain, but that's my 11 17:20:50 belief. 12 17:20:53 Q. Did the Siegels -- 13 17:20:53 A. Put it another way, I would be very 14 17:20:55 surprised if he was not. 15 17:20:56 Q. Did the Siegels also sign a conflict waiver 16 17:20:59 in 2008? 17 17:21:00 A. Yes. 18 17:21:00 Q. Do you know if he was involved in that 19 17:21:01 document? 20 17:21:05 A. I thought you just asked me that. 21 17:21:07 Q. I asked you about the consent agreement. 22 17:21:09 A. Oh, okay. 23 17:21:10 Q. Did you -- 24 17:21:11 A. Two separate documents, yeah. 25 17:21:12 So consent agreement, it would be the same EXHIBIT FF 479 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 80 of 84 Page ID #:37812 MARC TOBEROFF - 9/18/2012 Los Angeles - 800-826-0277 www.merrillcorp.com/law Merrill Corporation - Los Angeles Page 273 1 17:21:14 answer for both. 2 17:21:16 Q. There are two documents that the Siegels 3 17:21:18 signed in 2008? 4 17:21:19 A. Yes. 5 17:21:19 Q. Okay. 6 17:21:19 A. And -- and now that you ask it that way, I 7 17:21:23 have even -- I -- I think it's even -- it's even 8 17:21:29 more likely that Zadorozny was involved with the -- 9 17:21:35 with respect to the consent agreement, yes, and 10 17:21:39 since there were two agreements, including a 11 17:21:43 conflict waiver -- a conflict waiver and a consent 12 17:21:46 agreement, I believe he was involved in reviewing 13 17:21:47 those. 14 17:21:48 Q. And Zadorozny was involved in reviewing the 15 17:21:51 2004 retainer agreement with Joanne and Laura? 16 17:21:55 A. Yes. 17 17:22:00 Q. Why did you date the engagement for 18 17:22:05 professional services that you signed with Warren in 19 17:22:08 2004 as of November 23, 2001? 20 17:22:13 A. Two reasons. One, I wanted to make it 21 17:22:15 clear that this agreement was replacing the PPC 22 17:22:19 agreements and two, I wanted -- it was -- it was 23 17:22:27 like an assertion of privilege over our 24 17:22:33 relationship, attorney-client relationship 25 17:22:37 commencing at the latest on November 23rd, 2001 when EXHIBIT FF 480 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 81 of 84 Page ID #:37813 MARC TOBEROFF - 9/18/2012 Los Angeles - 800-826-0277 www.merrillcorp.com/law Merrill Corporation - Los Angeles Page 274 1 17:22:42 we signed the PPC agreement. 2 17:22:45 Q. When you signed the -- excuse me. Are you 3 17:22:50 a signatory to the consent agreement? 4 17:22:52 A. Only as to approval as to form. 5 17:22:59 Q. Okay. Did you receive independent legal 6 17:23:03 advice? Did you receive legal advice regarding that 7 17:23:06 subject whether the Siegels and Shusters could sign 8 17:23:14 a consent agreement without violating some law, 9 17:23:19 including the copyright statute? 10 17:23:21 MR. KENDALL: So that may call for 11 17:23:23 privileged information given the specificity of the 12 17:23:26 question. I just caution you not to reveal any 13 17:23:31 attorney-client communications you may have had with 14 17:23:34 anyone who was acting as your counsel or providing 15 17:23:37 legal advice. 16 17:23:46 THE WITNESS: But I can answer outside 17 17:23:53 of -- I can answer whether or not -- revealing 18 17:23:56 whether or not I did is not -- 19 17:23:57 MR. KENDALL: If the answer is no, then 20 17:23:59 you're not revealing any attorney-client 21 17:24:01 communication. If the answer is yes, then you might 22 17:24:06 be, and so then you have to make a judgment as to 23 17:24:08 whether you wish to reveal that. 24 17:24:12 THE WITNESS: Not -- not any -- not outside 25 17:24:15 of my firm. EXHIBIT FF 481 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 82 of 84 Page ID #:37814 MARC TOBEROFF - 9/18/2012 Los Angeles - 800-826-0277 www.merrillcorp.com/law Merrill Corporation - Los Angeles Page 314 1 DECLARATION 2 3 4 5 6 I hereby declare I am the deponent in the 7 within matter; that I have read the foregoing 8 deposition and know the contents thereof, and I 9 declare that the same is true of my knowledge except 10 as to the matters which are therein stated upon my 11 information or belief, and as to those matters, I 12 believe it to be true. 13 I declare under the penalties of perjury of 14 the State of California that the foregoing is true 15 and correct. 16 Executed on the _____ day of 17 _________________ 2012, at 18 __________________________________________, 19 California. 20 21 22 23 24 ___________________________________ 25 MARC TOBEROFF EXHIBIT FF 482 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 83 of 84 Page ID #:37815 MARC TOBEROFF - 9/18/2012 Los Angeles - 800-826-0277 www.merrillcorp.com/law Merrill Corporation - Los Angeles Page 315 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. 2 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) 3 4 I, Shanda Gabriel, Certified Shorthand 5 Reporter, Certificate No. 10094, for the State of 6 California, hereby certify: 7 I am the deposition officer that 8 stenographically recorded the testimony in the 9 foregoing deposition; 10 Prior to being examined the witness was by 11 me first duly sworn; 12 The foregoing transcript is a true record 13 of the testimony given. 14 Before completion of the deposition, review 15 of the transcript [X] was [] was not requested. If 16 requested, any changes made by the deponent (and 17 provided to the reporter) during the period allowed 18 are appended hereto. 19 20 Dated _________________________. 21 22 _____________________________ Shanda Gabriel 23 CSR 10094 24 25 EXHIBIT FF 483 Case 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Document 578-4 Filed 02/05/13 Page 84 of 84 Page ID #:37816