DC + Siegel heirs documents from summary judgment motion on 2-7-2013
-
Upload
jeff-trexler -
Category
Documents
-
view
73 -
download
2
description
Transcript of DC + Siegel heirs documents from summary judgment motion on 2-7-2013
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’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
DANIEL M. PETROCELLI (S.B. #097802) [email protected] MATTHEW T. KLINE (S.B. #211640) [email protected] CASSANDRA L. SETO (S.B. #246608) [email protected] O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, 7th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-6035 Telephone: (310) 553-6700 Facsimile: (310) 246-6779 Attorneys for the DC Comics Parties
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
LAURA SIEGEL LARSON,individually and as personal representative of the ESTATE OF JOANNE SIEGEL,
Plaintiff,
v.
WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC., DC COMICS, and DOES 1-10,
Defendants and Counterclaimants.
LAURA SIEGEL LARSON, individually and as personal representative of the ESTATE OF JOANNE SIEGEL,
Plaintiff,
v.
TIME WARNER INC., WARNER COMMUNICATIONS INC., WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC., WARNER BROS. TELEVISION PRODUCTION INC., DC COMICS, and DOES 1-10,
Defendants and Counterclaimants.
Case No. CV 04-8400 ODW (RZx)Case No. CV 04-8776 ODW (RZx) DEFENDANT DC COMICS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE SIEGEL SUPERMAN AND SUPERBOY CASES DECLARATION OF DANIEL M. PETROCELLI, [PROPOSED] STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, [PROPOSED] ORDER, AND [PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENTS FILED CONCURRENTLY HEREWITH The Hon. Otis D. Wright II
Hearing Date: March 11, 2013 Hearing Time: 1:30 p.m. Courtroom: 11
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 702 Filed 02/07/13 Page 1 of 12 Page ID #:15181
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’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on March 11, 2013, at 1:30 p.m., or as soon
thereafter as counsel may be heard by the above-entitled court, located in
Courtroom 11 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, California 90012, the DC
Comics parties (DC Comics, Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., Warner
Communications Inc., Warner Bros. Television Production Inc., and Time Warner
Inc.) (collectively, “DC”) will and hereby do move pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 56 for summary judgment in the two Siegel Superman and
Superboy cases, Case Nos. CV-04-8400 (Superman), CV-04-8776 (Superboy).
This motion is made following multiple conferences of counsel, including on
February 6, 2013, pursuant to Central District Local Rule 7-3.
In both the Superman and Superboy cases, DC’s Fourth Counterclaim seeks a
declaration that Larson transferred her Superman and Superboy copyrights to DC
pursuant to a 2001 settlement agreement, and that the parties are bound by the terms
of that agreement. In 2008, the prior judge in this case, the Hon. Stephen Larson,
held on summary judgment that no settlement agreement was reached. Case No.
04-8400, DN 293; Case No. 04-8776, DN 174. Last month, the Ninth Circuit
reversed that ruling and held, as a matter of law, that DC and Larson entered into a
settlement agreement on October 19, 2001, the terms of which are set forth in a
signed, six-page letter from Larson’s former attorney, Kevin Marks. Larson v.
Warner Bros. Entm’t, Inc., 2012 WL 6822241 (9th Cir. Jan. 10, 2013). The court
further held that the agreement constituted a valid copyright transfer. Id. at *1.
The Ninth Circuit’s binding ruling compels judgment in DC’s favor on its
Fourth Counterclaim in both Siegel cases; renders DC’s remaining counterclaims in
the cases moot (meaning they should be dismissed without prejudice); and requires
denial of Larson’s claims in the cases (meaning they should be dismissed with
prejudice). The Ninth Circuit requested that this Court resolve these questions on
remand, and the Court can and should do so now, and bring these two long-running
cases to an end.
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 702 Filed 02/07/13 Page 2 of 12 Page ID #:15182
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 - DC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This motion is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion and accompanying
Memorandum of Points and Authorities; the concurrently filed Declaration of
Daniel M. Petrocelli (cited herein as “Petrocelli Decl.”); the concurrently filed
Statement of Uncontroverted Facts and Conclusions of Law (cited herein as
“SUF”); the concurrently filed Proposed Order; the concurrently filed Proposed
Final Judgment in the Siegel Superman case; the concurrently filed Proposed Final
Judgment in the Siegel Superboy case; and all exhibits, files, and records on file in
this action, matters of which judicial notice may be taken, and such additional
submissions and argument as may be presented at or before the hearing on this
motion. Dated: February 7, 2013
Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ Daniel M. Petrocelli
Daniel M. Petrocelli Attorneys for DC
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 702 Filed 02/07/13 Page 3 of 12 Page ID #:15183
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’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
I. INTRODUCTION
After nearly a decade of litigation, the Siegel Superman (CV 04-8400) and
Siegel Superboy cases (CV 04-8776) can now come to an end. In 1997, the Siegel
heirs served copyright termination notices on DC, seeking to terminate Jerry
Siegel’s copyright grants in Superman and Superboy. After years of negotiations,
DC and the Siegels entered into a settlement agreement on October 19, 2001, under
which, inter alia, the Siegels transferred all of their rights in Superman and
Superboy to DC, in exchange for millions of dollars. But the Siegels repudiated
that agreement in 2002 and entered into a business deal with Marc Toberoff. Laura
Siegel Larson and her now-deceased mother, Joanne Siegel (collectively,
“Larson”), then filed two lawsuits against DC seeking to show she still owned
Superman and Superboy copyrights. DC counterclaimed in both cases for
declarations that the 2001 settlement agreement was valid and Larson transferred
her copyrights to DC. Judge Larson (since resigned) granted summary judgment
against DC on these claims, holding the parties never reached a binding agreement.
Last month, the Ninth Circuit reversed Judge Larson’s ruling. It held that
DC and Larson entered into a binding settlement agreement on October 19, 2001, in
which DC promised her valuable consideration and she, in turn, inter alia,
transferred any copyrights that may have been recaptured to DC. The Ninth Circuit
remanded the case to this Court to reconsider DC’s Third and Fourth
Counterclaims—which are based on the 2001 settlement agreement.
DC’s Fourth Counterclaim, asserted in both cases, sought a declaration that
the settlement agreement was enforceable and that DC owns all of the Superman
and Superboy copyrights on which Larson sued. The judicial declaration DC seeks
under these Fourth Counterclaims should now enter in both Siegel cases, and the
remaining claims in both lawsuits (both Larson’s claims and DC’s counterclaims)
can now be dismissed. This includes DC’s Third Counterclaims for breach of
contract, which DC agrees can be dismissed without prejudice, if DC prevails on its
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 702 Filed 02/07/13 Page 4 of 12 Page ID #:15184
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 - DC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Fourth Counterclaims, and the Proposed Judgments it has submitted are entered. In
short, these cases are over. Any attempt by Larson to resuscitate them is futile.
II. Statement of Facts
A. Background
In 1997, Laura Siegel Larson (and her mother, Joanne) served copyright
termination notices on DC seeking to recapture copyrights in Superman and
Superboy works. DC disputed the validity of the notices and spent the next four
years negotiating a compromise with Larson’s lawyer, Kevin Marks. DC made a
settlement offer to Larson and her family on October 16, 2001, and three days later,
Marks sent DC a letter confirming that Larson and her family had “‘accepted D.C.
Comics offer.’” Larson v. Warner Bros. Entm’t, Inc., 2012 WL 6822241, at *1 (9th
Cir. Jan. 10, 2013). Marks’ October 19 letter documented the agreement’s material
terms in six, single-spaced pages, and he thanked DC for its “‘help and patience in
reaching this monumental accord.’” Id.; Case No. 04-8400, DN 644 ¶¶ 39, 49.
Larson thereafter went into business with Marc Toberoff, denied the
existence of the October 2001 agreement, and served an additional copyright
termination notice seeking to recapture rights in Superboy, even though Superboy
works had been included in her 1997 notices and the October 2001 settlement
agreement. SUF 1; Case No. 04-8400, DN 163 at 89 n.1 (1997 notice: “This Notice
of Termination applies to each and every work … reasonably associated with
SUPERMAN… such as, … Superboy”); Case No. 04-8776, DN 54 at 83-140.
Larson filed two lawsuits against DC seeking to enforce her termination
notices. In the Superman case (No. 04-8400), she asserted four claims, seeking:
1) a declaration that in 1999 she had recaptured a 50% interest in certain
Superman copyrights by virtue of her 1997 termination notice and that she
continues to own that interest (First Claim);
2) a declaration as to the profits she was entitled to from the allegedly
recaptured Superman copyrights (Second Claim);
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 702 Filed 02/07/13 Page 5 of 12 Page ID #:15185
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 - DC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
3) a declaration that in 1999 she had recaptured a 50% copyright interest in
the Superman shield which she continues to own (Third Claim); and
4) an accounting of DC’s post-termination Superman profits (Fourth Claim).
Case No. 04-8400, DN 644. (Larson originally asserted, but then dismissed, other
claims for unfair competition under the Lanham Act and California law. DN 376.)
DC filed counterclaims in the Superman case seeking:
1) a declaration that Larson’s “Superman notices and the Superboy notice are
ineffective” because, inter alia, they were untimely and did not terminate
all of Siegel’s prior grants to DC (First Counterclaim);
2) a declaration that Larson’s claims were time-barred (Second
Counterclaim);
3) damages for Larson’s breach of the October 19, 2001, settlement
agreement (Third Counterclaim);
4) a declaration that, by virtue of the “binding and enforceable” 2001
settlement agreement, Larson “transferred or [is] contractually obligated to
transfer to DC Comics, worldwide and in perpetuity, any and all rights,
title, and interest, including all United States copyrights, which [she] may
have in the Superman Works” (Fourth Counterclaim);
5) a declaration limiting the scope of the Superman termination notices in the
event it was found to be valid (Fifth Counterclaim); and
6) a declaration concerning the principles to be applied in any accounting,
again assuming the termination was held to be valid (Sixth Counterclaim).
Id., DN 646.
Larson asserted five claims in the Superboy case (No. 04-8776) for:
1) an injunction preventing DC from infringing the Superboy copyrights she
said she recaptured by her November 2002 termination notice, and also
damages and an order requiring destruction of any infringing works (First
Claim);
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 702 Filed 02/07/13 Page 6 of 12 Page ID #:15186
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 - DC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
2) a declaration that, by virtue of the 2002 termination notice, she owned and
does own 100% of certain Superboy copyrights; that the Smallville
television series is derivative of Superboy; and that DC may not exploit
any new Smallville or Superboy derivative works on or after the
termination date in her notice, or November 17, 2004 (Second Claim);
3) an injunction under the Lanham Act requiring DC to ascribe copyright
ownership in Superboy merchandise to Larson (Third Claim);
4) damages and an injunction requiring DC to ascribe copyright ownership
in Superboy merchandise to Larson (Fourth Claim); and
5) an injunction preventing DC from exploiting new Superboy derivative
works after November 17, 2004, and requiring DC to credit Jerome Siegel
as the creator of Superboy on all such works.
Case No. 04-8776, DN 43. DC contested these claims and raised the same six
counterclaims it asserted in the Superman case. Id., DN 44.
On March 26, 2008, Judge Larson issued a partial summary judgment order
in both the Superman and Superboy cases. He rejected DC’s Third and Fourth
Counterclaims that the parties had entered into a binding settlement agreement in
2001, but found that the majority of disputed works sought by Larson in her First
Claim were non-terminable works-for-hire owned by DC. Case No. 04-8400, DN
293; Case No. 04-8776, DN 174. Larson sought an interlocutory appeal of these
rulings, Case No. 04-8400, DN 671; 674, and DC cross appealed.
B. The Ninth Circuit’s January 10, 2013, Ruling
On appeal, DC asked the Ninth Circuit to “ent[er] [] judgment [in its favor]
on all claims [in the Siegel Superman case] on the basis of an October 2001
settlement agreement.” 9th Cir. Appeal Nos. 11-55863, 56034, DN 31-1 at 5. On
January 10, 2013, the Ninth Circuit unanimously reversed Judge Larson’s March
2008, summary judgment order. See Larson v. Warner Bros. Entm’t, Inc., 2012
WL 6822241 (9th Cir. Jan. 10, 2013). The court began its opinion by noting that
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 702 Filed 02/07/13 Page 7 of 12 Page ID #:15187
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 - DC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
“[t]he central issue” on DC’s settlement-related counterclaims was “whether the
parties reached a binding settlement agreement during their negotiations over the
rights to Superman in 2001 and 2002.” Id. at *1.
The Court answered that question in the affirmative, explaining that Judge
Larson “failed to address whether the October 19, 2001, letter from [Kevin Marks
to DC] constituted an acceptance of terms negotiated between the parties, and thus
was sufficient to create a contract.” Id. The court explained, id.:
We hold, as a matter of law, that the October 19, 2001 letter did constitute such an acceptance. [fn. 2:] Larson, in her brief, states this question should be resolved as a matter of law. [Citations omitted.] The October 19, 2001, letter itself plainly states that the heirs have “accepted D.C. Comics offer of October 16, 2001in respect of the ‘Superman’ and ‘Spectre’ properties. The terms are as follows….” What follows is five pages of terms outlining substantial compensation for the heirs in exchange for DC’s continued right to produce Superman works. The letter ends with Larson’s attorney thanking DC’s attorney for his “help and patience in reaching this monumental accord.” Further, although it is the objective, and not subjective, understandings of the parties that determine whether they reached an agreement, extrinsic evidence of the parties’ actions may be used to determine whether the oral offer referred to in the letter had, in fact, been made. Cf. Wedeck v. Unocal Corp., 69 Cal. Rptr. 2d 501, 507-08 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997). Statements from the attorneys for both parties establish that the parties had undertaken years of negotiations, that they had resolved the last outstanding point in the deal during a conversation on October 16, 2001, and that the letter accurately reflected the material terms they had orally agreed to on that day.
We reject Larson’s arguments that either state or federal law precludes a finding that such a contract could have been created by the October 19, 2001, letter. California law permits parties to bind themselves to a contract, even when they anticipate that “some material aspects of the deal [will] be papered later.” Facebook, Inc. v. Pac. Nw. Software, Inc., 640 F.3d 1034, 1038 (9th Cir. 2011); Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel, 87 Cal. Rptr. 2d 822, 828 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999). This principle applies notwithstanding the lack of an express reference to an intended future agreement, as long as the terms of any contract that may have been formed are sufficiently definite that a court could enforce them (as is undoubtedly the case here). Facebook, 640 F.3d at 1038 (noting the minimal requirements to form an enforceable contract, and that California law does not require express delegation regarding potential missing terms of a contract); Patel v. Liebermensch, 197 P.3d 177, 182-83 (Cal. 2008). That Facebook involved a contract signed by
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 702 Filed 02/07/13 Page 8 of 12 Page ID #:15188
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 - DC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
both parties does not render it any less controlling here; under California’s statute of frauds, the only signature that is required is that of the party against whom a contract is sought to be enforced. See Ulloa v. McMillin Real Estate & Mortg., Inc., 57 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1, 4-5 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007); see also 1 B.E. Witkin, Summary of California Law, Contracts § 359 (10th ed. 2005). Nor is 17 U.S.C. § 204(a) a bar to the validity of any such contract; that statute expressly permits an agreement transferring ownership of a copyright to be signed by a “duly authorized agent” of the copyright owner, and Larson does not contest that the heirs’ attorney was such an agent. (Emphases added).
The Ninth Circuit reversed Judge Larson’s grant of summary judgment
against DC and “direct[ed] the district judge to reconsider DC’s third and fourth
counterclaims in light of our holding that the October 19, 2001, letter created an
agreement.” Id. at *2. It further noted: “Because a judgment on those claims in
DC’s favor would appear to render moot all of the other questions in this lawsuit,
we decline to address these other issues at this time.” Id. Larson did not petition
for rehearing, and the Ninth Circuit issued its mandate on February 4, 2013.
II. Summary Judgment Is Warranted On DC’s Fourth Counterclaim In
The Siegel Superman And Superboy Cases, And DC’s Remaining
Counterclaims In Those Cases Are Moot And Can Be Dismissed.
On remand, this Court is bound by the Ninth Circuit’s mandate. See FED. R.
APP. P. 41(c), and Committee Note to 1998 Amendment thereto. “When matters
are decided by an appellate court, its rulings, unless reversed by it or by a superior
court, bind the lower court.” Ins. Grp. Comm. v. Denver & R.G.W.R.R., 329 U.S.
607, 612 (1947). Summary judgment is appropriate where there is “no genuine
issue as to any material fact,” and the only issue is one of law. FED. R. CIV. P.
56(a); SCHWARZER, TASHIMA & WAGSTAFFE, CAL. PRACTICE GUIDE: FED. CIV.
PROCEDURE BEFORE TRIAL §§ 14:3, 14:207 (2012).
A. Summary Judgment Is Warranted On DC’s Fourth Counterclaim.
The Ninth Circuit’s ruling compels judgment in DC’s favor on its Fourth
Counterclaims in both Siegel cases. The claims ask the Court for a declaration
stating that under the October 2001, settlement agreement, Larson “transferred or
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 702 Filed 02/07/13 Page 9 of 12 Page ID #:15189
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 - DC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
[is] contractually obligated to transfer to DC Comics, worldwide and in perpetuity,
any and all rights, title, and interest, including all United States copyrights, which
[she] may have in the Superman Works.” Case No. 04-8400, DN 646 ¶ 103(a);
Case No. 04-8776, DN 44 ¶ 103(a).
The Ninth Circuit held that the October 2001 settlement agreement—the
terms of which require Larson to “transfer all of [her] rights in the ‘Superman’ and
‘Spectre’ properties (including ‘Superboy’), resulting in 100% ownership to D.C.
Comics,” SUF 1— “created an agreement” “as a matter of law,” Larson, 2012 WL
6822241, at *1. The Ninth Circuit rejected Larson’s arguments that the 2001 deal
did not contain all the necessary material terms, and the Ninth Circuit also held that
the contract satisfied all of the requirements for a valid copyright transfer under the
Copyright Act. Id. On remand, Larson is bound by these holdings. Supra at 6.
In accordance with the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, and as set forth in DC’s two
proposed judgments filed herewith, the Court should enter judgment in DC’s favor
on its Fourth Counterclaims and declare that Larson transferred her Superman and
Superboy copyrights to DC by virtue of the October 2001 settlement agreement.1
B. DC’s Five Remaining Counterclaims Are Moot.
DC’s other counterclaims are all rendered moot by the Ninth Circuit’s ruling
on DC’s case-determinative settlement defense. DC’s First, Second, Fifth, and
Sixth Counterclaims all seek relief that was only applicable if the parties did not
reach a binding settlement agreement in 2001. DC’s First Counterclaims dispute
the validity of Larson’s termination notices; its Fifth Counterclaims dispute the
termination notices’ scope; its Second Counterclaims are a now moot statute-of-
1 In the parties’ meet-and-confer discussions preceding this motion, Larson’s
counsel was deliberately opaque about what defenses she would assert, saying no more than she was reserving “all contractual and declaratory relief arguments.” Petrocelli Decl. ¶ 2; Ex. A. DC will address any such arguments, as needed, on reply. Defendants played a similar game when opposing DC’s summary judgment motion in the Pacific Pictures case, id. Ex. C at 27 (DC’s reply brief addressing this tactic), and the Court rightly rejected it, id. Ex. D at 40 (opinion; collecting cases).
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 702 Filed 02/07/13 Page 10 of 12 Page ID #:15190
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 - DC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
limitations defense; and its Sixth Counterclaims concern accounting principles that
were only relevant if the termination was declared valid. Supra at 3-4.
DC’s Third Counterclaims (requesting damages for Larson’s breach of the
2001 settlement agreement) will also be mooted if the Court enters judgment on its
Fourth Counterclaims, as DC requests above. Instead of damages for breach, DC
will seek its attorney’s fees under the Copyright Act and its Fourth Claim in these
cases, and will seek damages against Toberoff in the related Pacific Pictures case.
Toberoff challenged DC’s ability to seek those attorney’s fees consistent with the
SLAPP statute. 9th Cir. Appeal No. 11-56934, DN 8 at 27; 37-1 at 37-38. The
Ninth Circuit rejected his SLAPP appeal and, with it, such arguments. Id.; DC
Comics v. Pacific Pictures Corp., 2013 WL 120807 (9th Cir. Jan. 10, 2013).
III. Summary Judgment Is Warranted On Larson’s Claims In The Siegel
Superman And Superboy Cases.
As the Ninth Circuit noted “appear[ed]” to be the case, it is indeed the case
that “a judgment [in] DC’s favor” on its settlement counterclaim “render[s] moot all
of the other questions in this lawsuit,” including Larson’s claims for relief. Larson,
2012 WL 6822241, at *2. Her four claims in the Superman case all hinge on the
validity of her termination notice and her continued ownership of the allegedly
recaptured Superman copyrights. Supra at 2-3. Larson traded any rights she had in
Superman to DC, as part of the October 19, 2001, agreement. By that agreement’s
express terms, Larson assigned to DC all of her rights and interests in Superman:
“The Property” means all Superman, Superboy and related properties (including, for example, Supergirl, Steel, Lois & Clark and Smallville), and the Spectre property, and includes all pre- and post-termination works (including the so-called Superman library), characters, names and trademarks relating to the Property. . . .
The Siegel Family would transfer all of its rights in the “Superman” and “Spectre” properties (including “Superboy”), resulting in 100% ownership to D.C. Comics, as between the Siegel Family and D.C. Comics.
SUF 1.
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 702 Filed 02/07/13 Page 11 of 12 Page ID #:15191
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 - DC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Larson’s five claims in the Superboy case are equally barred. Her First
Claim—seeking an injunction to prevent copyright infringement, supra at 3—
requires that she owned the Superboy rights. “Only the copyright owner, or the
owner of exclusive rights under the copyright, as of the time the acts of
infringement occur, has standing to bring an action for infringement of such rights.”
Oskar Sys., LLC v. Club Speed, Inc., 745 F. Supp. 2d 1155, 1159 (C.D. Cal. 2010);
Maljack Prods. v. Goodtimes Home Video Corp., 81 F.3d 881, 889 (9th Cir. 1996).
Larson’s claim that an infringement resulted from DC’s exploitation of “new
derivative works or products based on the ‘Superboy’ mythology,” “on or after
November 17, 2004,” Case No. 04-8776, DN 43 ¶ 68, is barred by the 2001
settlement agreement, which specifically provides: “The Siegel Family would
transfer all of its rights in the ‘Superman’ and ‘Spectre’ properties (including
‘Superboy’).” SUF 1.
Larson’s Second through Fifth Claims similarly fail, because all four
expressly assume she owns the Superboy copyrights, supra at 4—again, rights the
Ninth Circuit held she transferred to DC in October 2001, id. at 5-6.
IV. Conclusion
DC’s motion for summary judgment should be granted, and its proposed
judgments in the Siegel Superman and Superboy cases should enter immediately.
Dated: February 7, 2013
Respectfully Submitted, O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
By: /s/ Daniel M. Petrocelli Daniel M. Petrocelli Attorneys for DC
OMM_US:71281420
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 702 Filed 02/07/13 Page 12 of 12 Page ID #:15192
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
PETROCELLI DECL. ISO DC’S MOT. SUMM. J.
DANIEL M. PETROCELLI (S.B. #097802) [email protected] MATTHEW T. KLINE (S.B. #211640) [email protected] CASSANDRA L. SETO (S.B. #246608) [email protected] O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, 7th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-6035 Telephone: (310) 553-6700 Facsimile: (310) 246-6779 Attorneys for Plaintiff DC Comics
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
LAURA SIEGEL LARSON,individually and as personal representative of the ESTATE OF JOANNE SIEGEL,
Plaintiff,
v.
WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC., DC COMICS, and DOES 1-10,
Defendants and Counterclaimants.
LAURA SIEGEL LARSON, individually and as personal representative of the ESTATE OF JOANNE SIEGEL,
Plaintiff,
v.
TIME WARNER INC., WARNER COMMUNICATIONS INC., WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC., WARNER BROS. TELEVISION PRODUCTION INC., DC COMICS, and DOES 1-10,
Defendants and Counterclaimants.
Case No. CV 04-8400 ODW (RZx)Case No. CV 04-8776 ODW (RZx) DECLARATION OF DANIEL M. PETROCELLI IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT DC COMICS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE SIEGEL SUPERMAN AND SUPERBOY CASES The Hon. Otis D. Wright II
Hearing Date: March 11, 2013 Hearing Time: 1:30 p.m. Courtroom: 11
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 702-1 Filed 02/07/13 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:15193
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 - PETROCELLI DECL. ISO DC’S MOT. SUMM. J.
DECLARATION OF DANIEL M. PETROCELLI
I, Daniel M. Petrocelli, declare and state:
1. I am a partner at O’Melveny & Myers LLP, counsel of record for
defendants and counterclaimants (collectively “DC”) in this case. I make this
declaration in support of DC’s Motion For Summary Judgment In The Siegel
Superman And Superboy Cases. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth
in this declaration.
2. Following the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in DC’s favor in the Siegel
Superman case on January 10, 2013, I spoke on several occasions to Marc Toberoff
and Richard Kendall (his counsel in the related Pacific Pictures case), about DC’s
intent to bring a motion asking this Court to enter final judgment in the Siegel
Superman and Superboy cases. I sent Mr. Toberoff and Mr. Kendall follow-up
emails regarding DC’s motion for entry of judgment on January 28 and February 1,
2013. My partner, Matthew Kline, sent Mr. Toberoff and Mr. Kendall additional
correspondence (as well as drafts of the proposed judgments DC would be
submitting in connection with this motion) on February 4, and on February 6, Mr.
Kline had a telephone conference with Laura Siegel Larson’s counsel. As detailed
in Mr. Kline’s follow-up email of February 6, Larson’s counsel would not identify
any specific ground based on which Larson would oppose DC’s summary judgment
motion or any objections Larson had to the draft proposed judgments DC had
provided. Instead, Larson’s counsel said Larson reserved “all contractual and
declaratory relief arguments” in opposing DC’s motion. Mr. Kline asked Larson’s
counsel in a follow-up email to identify any such arguments with specificity, but
Larson’s counsel declined to provide such details, and argued, as they had before,
that DC’s motion was premature. Mr. Kline and I both noted in our emails that
Larson’s counsel had created the delay here, and DC had tried on several earlier
occasions to meet and confer. A true and correct copy of the parties’ email
correspondence described above is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 702-1 Filed 02/07/13 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:15194
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 - PETROCELLI DECL. ISO DC’S MOT. SUMM. J.
3. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of Kevin
Marks’ October 19, 2001, letter to John Schulman, described and discussed in the
Ninth Circuit’s recent ruling. See Larson v. Warner Bros. Entm’t, Inc., 2012 WL
6822241, at *1 (9th Cir. Jan. 10, 2013).
4. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of an excerpt
from DC’s Reply In Support Of Motion For Partial Summary Judgment On Its First
And Third Claims For Relief, filed in the related Pacific Pictures case, Case No.
CV-10-3633, DN 468.
5. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of the Court’s
Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion For Partial Summary Judgment [458] And
Denying Defendants’ Cross-Motion [478], issued in Pacific Pictures, Case No. CV-
10-3633, DN 507.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California
and the United States that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 7th day
of February, 2013, at Los Angeles, California. _/s/ Daniel M. Petrocelli_ Daniel M. Petrocelli OMM_US:71288309
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 702-1 Filed 02/07/13 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:15195
EXHIBIT A
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 702-2 Filed 02/07/13 Page 1 of 47 Page ID #:15196
EXHIBIT A 3
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 702-2 Filed 02/07/13 Page 2 of 47 Page ID #:15197
EXHIBIT A 4
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 702-2 Filed 02/07/13 Page 3 of 47 Page ID #:15198
EXHIBIT A 5
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 702-2 Filed 02/07/13 Page 4 of 47 Page ID #:15199
EXHIBIT A 6
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 702-2 Filed 02/07/13 Page 5 of 47 Page ID #:15200
EXHIBIT A 7
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 702-2 Filed 02/07/13 Page 6 of 47 Page ID #:15201
EXHIBIT A 8
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 702-2 Filed 02/07/13 Page 7 of 47 Page ID #:15202
EXHIBIT A 9
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 702-2 Filed 02/07/13 Page 8 of 47 Page ID #:15203
EXHIBIT A 10
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 702-2 Filed 02/07/13 Page 9 of 47 Page ID #:15204
EXHIBIT A 11
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 702-2 Filed 02/07/13 Page 10 of 47 Page ID #:15205
EXHIBIT A 12
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 702-2 Filed 02/07/13 Page 11 of 47 Page ID #:15206
EXHIBIT A 13
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 702-2 Filed 02/07/13 Page 12 of 47 Page ID #:15207
EXHIBIT A 14
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 702-2 Filed 02/07/13 Page 13 of 47 Page ID #:15208
EXHIBIT A 15
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 702-2 Filed 02/07/13 Page 14 of 47 Page ID #:15209
EXHIBIT A 16
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 702-2 Filed 02/07/13 Page 15 of 47 Page ID #:15210
EXHIBIT A 17
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 702-2 Filed 02/07/13 Page 16 of 47 Page ID #:15211
EXHIBIT A 18
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 702-2 Filed 02/07/13 Page 17 of 47 Page ID #:15212
EXHIBIT B
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 702-2 Filed 02/07/13 Page 18 of 47 Page ID #:15213
Gдг6ι c, 7YRE, Rλλ ÍИER & BROWN, 1NC.APTOftNéYS A7 (AW '
ΓiflПM μ{ A. PYt1E JEFFAEY M. MANCéLLиFaыøиE κ epσwи CEии s. ымκs®ПÙCξ ς.f. FUMCA GflF66 и,πwюNGtiMfES A SCδTr NπNLY L 8O)twE1.1RONИЛ A, PДáSMйи 6дp8дpA S1LE£a8V6CNИλftO(B 1 BflбYЛi 9NGMUS JENa1N6tAиmεиa n. AбSE F
Octo6ee14,200í
^T1 Я'^COPÍ^Fit ^ιп^ ß_ _ч 1̂УlыIL
lnlцι A. 5c^ulma^, Es ιl.Exøcufíve clïcc PτesidøпUCrenéral CounselWamee Hτos. PíemresΛOOO Wвmce Houλ eωa τdMaiп Admiпístratïoö, Raom 226[3urbank, CA 41522-Ot)22
Reτ
Deaz John:
^aM a uM^J. EUGENE E49M^M. J0.
ι зx soω7н Aσoεo αaιvεsSVεaLY MILLS, CÅUFдa^ λA 8ex λ3-x10J
ιззet п7•ιsooFιiχ λз lm 7x7-lae l
This is co co^f^m^ ow [elepho^e conversaüon of October !9, 2001. The Siegel Family(tluough Joa^me Síegel and L,au^ Sie$eî Larson, the majoríry owners of the térmi^ated copy ńghtinterests} has accepted D.C. Gömícs offer of October I6, 200I ín ^espe αΡt of the "Supe^^aå' and"Spectre" properties. The ^e^ns are as follows:
A.
"Supernr^^/Spect^e Gross Revenues" means DC Comícs' worldwide grossrevenues de^íved from the Property, éxdudíng only revenues de ńved fromD.C. Comic`s pubticatío^s.
L
B.
236!72.!
o 'tiańs.
1. "The Property" means all Superman, 5uperboy and related p^opeeties(ínctudíng, for example, Superg^íl, Steol, Lois & Ci^k and Smaltvílle),and the Spectre property, and ^^cludes all pre- and post-^e^ní^at^o^ works(inciudíng ^e so-called 5upecпιaп library), eЬaracceгs, names aлdhadem^ks reIatíng to the Property.
Fiпangial Teппs.
1. Anon-returnable, bait ^eco^pable advance of $2,000,000.
íдeilцι t .Y.--=--^-^ч°" μ̂μ lЯξд{'ΓSFåCf1T7t}N
DйY6D. θ. GQt.ErdAN. ΓSR ^^^+
`©^O Yή.......,..l1ATlz l^`
Jf^'Y^ς[ηE&B λ̂
лOλ^^_„
crκв aзoг
EXHIBIT B 19
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 702-2 Filed 02/07/13 Page 19 of 47 Page ID #:15214
C^ANCw, TYRE,' F{AMER & ORVWN, INC.John A. Sc^utman, Esq.^etober19,2aa1Page 2
2: ' A aoп-remmable, non-recoupabl в sígníпg bвnus of t,000,000.
3. D.C. Comics wí11 forgív^ the 5250,000 advance from last ^e^-statedad^erwïsc, that payment will gat r^dusé the adva^s^ arbo^us, narshall itb^ recoupable {co^kary tö Paragraph 3 of the January 12, 2001 løtteragrceme^t}.
4. Thera will be an a^ual guarantee of $500,040 der year payable for 10yeazs beginning March 31, 2002. 'The an^uai g^^ata^te^ is recoupablefrom royalty payments (under S and б beinw}. Tie a^ual guarantee ispaid Marsń 31" of each yeaz. If at the end of the a^uai guarantee peńod(í:e., LO' years}, D.C. ^s un^ecouped, the a^ual guarantee will b^ reducedt^ $I00,000 or 2S% of the ava^age royalties for tl^e previous three yeas(resamputed cash year}, wt^ichwe^ ïs greater (for so long as D.C. is^nrecouped}. If D.C. is ^eco^^ped, t^e^ the a^uat guarantee will be 7S%of tie averago royalties for the previous three years, whícń ís recor^tputedeach year.
C
5. A ^óyatty of б°f^ of Supern^an/Spectre Gross Revenues. Tis applies(without limitation} to the use of the entire Property, including the so-calledSuperman îíh^ary , í^ any and all media now o^ úereafter k^ow^ (excludingDC Camícs pubücatí^^s}, í^ öron mers^a^díse and ín promotions!campaigns. Tåis ^^yalry applies whey the Property ís used atone or íslísensed for matio^ pí^mré and t^levisían pro¡ вéεs iø accocdaпee with the"safe Ø^^^" motion picture and television deals discussed ^n PazagraphC(IO}, Thís б% roy^hy witl be adjusted pro-rata ώhe^ the P^pe^ty ís usedíu co^ju^ctío^ with ^t^er baoh characters (other than ín a "cameo" type ofappearance), buy in no event less tha^.3°1° ex tat the^o^alty çan ^efu^tlser reduced to {a) I.S°!° in the,case of Justice League of Aine ńsa,"Superfńends'" and "Superhems" me^^han^íse aid iícensïng, and (b} 1°lo i^e^t^aordînary cases sucń as D.C. ComícslWam^r Bros. overall lícensa toSix Fiags (wi^ích involves numemús characters, í^cludíag D.C. Comíe'scharacters aαd Looney Tonnes characters}'.
^. A ^o^alty of 2°^ó of the cover pńce of DC Co^^cs' publications. Tits
^ This redueüon would nit apply ^o a license fora "Supe^mari 'specific ride o^ atØction.
ί
τз6ιт2.ι
GTRB 0303
EXHIBIT B 20
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 702-2 Filed 02/07/13 Page 20 of 47 Page ID #:15215
C
royalty applies when the Property ís used alone , and will be adjusted p^-rata when the P^pe^ty ís used ín co^junc^íon with other comic bookchawcters (o^tl^er than í^ a "cornea" type of appea^anc^ ), but ïn ^o eventless than O.5%.
Receupment 6egíus as ofJanιιary i, ?A06.
8. Duń^g thø first calendar yeør ín which advancestguara^teed payments aremade there sØ11 be ^o interest . Thsreafter (that ís, begi^^ng January t ofthe followì^g year), there shall be interest at the pńme lending rate, and this
ís also recoupable. "
9. Annual guá^a^tces aid royalties (if D.C. ís filly recouped} are paíd fnr thedun^^on of U.S: copyńght af Actéon Comics No. 1. However for motionpíctu^e and television g^odu^t released near the end of the [ertn, ro^a^ieswill contínus to be paid as follows : (aj Foy ^ motion ^ícture released nearthe end af the tern , royalties shall be pad for five years from the initialtheatríca^ release éve^ íf some part ^f that five year pcńod is atte^ the CJ.S.copyńght expires, (ü) far television series , royalties will bé paíd thoughthe full first rug o£ the seńes, plus three years tlie^eafte^ (so as to pick up acleast the fast sy^dícatíon sale), even if that period ís after the U.S.copyńght tec^^ expires , and (c) for other substantial proj^ts (akin tomotío^ píciu^e and televisío^ projects), royalties shall be paid for five yearsfrom the initial theatrical release ofsuch prö^ëct, sven íf some part of thatftve^eaz period is after the J.S. co^^ ń̂ght expires.
( C. Otlιer Teгτпs
t. The Siegel Family would Ø^sfer all of its ńghts ín the "S^perman" and"Spectré' properties .(i^cluding "S^perboy"), resulting ín 100% ownershipto. D.C. Comics, as behveen the Siegel Family and D.C. Comics.
C
GANG, ^^YRE, RAMER ót BR^7WN, (NC.lohn A, Sehuln^an, Esq.October 19, 2001Page 3
236(72.[
If Far any legal ^r^so^ , there ca^ot be a transfer of all ńghts nt this time,ever^thíng ín thisdeal^ppl ^es as a prepayment to any future transfer,except $ í O0,000 per year would not be applicable agaí^st the compe^satíon(if any} fog a fi^tttre hansFer. This would nót result ìn addítío^al moniesupon perfecting the "Spe^t^e " te^mi^afio^ . Rather, and by way of example,í^ the ^nlike^y situation that She law chańges , aid this ^a^sfer is somehow
GTRB 0304
EXHIBIT B 21
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 702-2 Filed 02/07/13 Page 21 of 47 Page ID #:15216
C
VA ίVÌ3 г t 7FiCϋ ι 17 APAFE'{ CX L7fiØ ίгVfV ι ^^ÌC.lohn A. Sεhulmaп, Ssη.Oatobeг (9, 2041Page 4
ínval'^dáted o^ limïted by aperatîon af law, and theré is a futwe court^udgme^t agaí^st I7 .C. Camüs, ^hís deaf Ovnuld apply against the amount ofsuch judgem^^^ excøpt to Wø ^xrent af $IOQ,Q00 per yeas For the sake ofcla^íty, this pravísio^ wí11 nat i^^ any cí^cumstance reduce the monícs dueώø Sïegøl Fa^^íly undee this desi.
tJntiC the øxpir^tion of the ^.5. capyńght £or Action Camícs No_ 1, thørewit[ be á crcdít on "Superman" comas sad other publications , movíe^ andt^løvisia^^ p^ográms that reads: "B^ Specie! A^^a^geme^t with the JerrySíegøl Family". The síu and placement of credit is to he í^ I^.C. Comics'dìsøretío^.
4. D.C. shill accord c^edít along the lines of"Supe^^^a^ created by Je^ySíegel and Joe Shustør", "Created by Jerry S^ogel and Joø Shuster" ar"Based on the cl^aractørs created by Jemmy Siegel and Joe Shuster" or"Supørńoy created b^ Jerry Siegel " or "The Spectre created by 7e^^y Siegeland Børnard Salley" (as applícabíej oa motion ^ict^^es (main tíeles onscreen, paìd ads}, tetev^sío^ pingrams (mala titles), alt pu^li^a ńons, and ona!t otha^ works where edit to e^øatars ^^ customary.
5. Theaccountíng statcme^ts wilt be rendered Márch 31", and if royaltypayments are due for tØ p^ovìous calendar year, ^e^ will be paid at thesame tín^e {along with the a^ual guaranteø for the then present yøaг}.
6. íx eespect of tí^e monies dua under this ńghts deal, D.C. Comics will payd^ectiy 47:5%t0 J^á^e Sïegel , 23.75% ta Laura Síegel Larson, 23.75 °/ato Michael Sïegel , and 5% to Cang, T^rø, Ramer & Bmwn, Inc. (counsel tothe Síegel Family).
?. Joa^e, Laura ánd Michael cap assïgn o^ ^tberwise dispose of aQ or part oftheir monetary co^t^acmai entitlements u^de^ this deal (athér thaníns^ra^ce) üp to a maximum of three tïmes each.
8. ^^.Ç. Comics to provide mØícat and degyta! insurance for-Mic^aet andLamma, and Laura's c(^íld^e^ for so fang as they are minors. Laura is also fobe reimbursed fir the costs of medical à^d dental insurance for her sad hersons since November 2000.
236[72.1
cтнв aзas
EXHIBIT B 22
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 702-2 Filed 02/07/13 Page 22 of 47 Page ID #:15217
C
^^ANG, TYRE, RAMER & BROWN, INC.John A. Schulman, Esq.Oc^ober [9,200!Page 5
DC Comics to provìd^ fh^ opportunity for the Síegel Family ta he ïnfownedabout major developments {^.^., motion p^cń^res , t^^evísio^ p^og^ams,theme park àmactíons , major ct^a^ge^ planned i^ publications }, and theSi^gci Family wil[ have a^^ appartuníty to gwe its Wiput, but tt^^s daas notńs^ ta the I^v^l of a ^ro^sultatíon fight. Tbr Sïog^t Family will be info^r^edof such developments early enough í^ the development process sa Wat ώeirapportu^íty to gîve input ís meaníngihl.
10. Síegel Family to have full audit rights. [nt^a-company transaa^o^s wül ^e .c^ve^ed by "safö harbors" established at a level co^sìste^t with the Salkí^dS^^pem^an ú^^at^ícal motion píc^ur^ dial, the "Lois & Ctazk" televisionprogram deal, the WS Televísia^ Animation deal, aid We existí^g feearrangements with Warner $ros. Co^^sum^r Products. There wilt be a^expedítod dispute resolution p^oced^re f^c ^halkng^ng intro-company dealsw^ích fall ouisíd^ the safe hazbors. D.C. would also íncludo í^ the "safeharbors" the Salkí^d a^ other deals as they may be reduced, but only ^í)where another ct^aract^r of comparable stature co "Supermagi ' (e.g.,"Batman") is used ín a ^omparabte manner ín co^ectïon with the sameprojeat; (ir} on a prorata basis with the adjustment ín the other character'sńghØ deal, and (^ü) ín all events, Wc reduction shall ^e ńo less Way SO% arWe ońgí^at ńgttts deal.
1 ^. At the end of the U.S. Copyńght term, the Sîege] Family agrees that ít willnot exploit the Property, even t^augh ít ^s ín the public domain.
12. The Siegel Famïly wau^d agree ro execute furtøer documents, aged D.C.Comes would be appointed as attorney -ín-fact to execute sucà documentsíf the Siegel Family faits ta do so within a reasonable pe^íod of ^íme.
13. Síegel Famïly would got make any wa^anti^s as to the nature of rights, butwould ^eprese^t that they bave not transfe^ed ^í^e rights to any party. TheSíegel Famí[^ would,agree Wat thore will be no interference with theSupe^nan ńgí^ts; or disparagement of D,C. Comics. D.C. Carmes andAOL Time Wa^^^ agree not to díspa^age the Síegel Far^ìly,
I4. Pull E&O and g^^eral liability coverages, and Bull i^demnitíes foi JoanneSíegel, Lauri Síegel Larson, and Míehaei SíogeI against líab^líty for DC oraffiliate aetìons.
236172.1
GTRB 0306
EXHIBIT B 23
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 702-2 Filed 02/07/13 Page 23 of 47 Page ID #:15218
GANG, TvR^, RAMER & $ROWN, INC.Tahn A. Schuléna^, Esq.öctober t9, 200tPage ^
It ^s also ageced that Joanne's widow 's ^enefit^ (ineludíng bath payments and ï^s^^a^ce),aro to ^o^tínue for her lífe , aid will not be heated as an advance agaí^st this dead and aye notrecoupable from this deal.
Jahn, íf there is any aspeat . of the above that ís somel^aw misstated, please Iet me know byMø^da^ at 2:00, as I will be out oféhe office - and tíkely ^íff^cu^t to reach-far the fol[owí^gfour weeks.
Many thanks for help and patíe^^^ ín reaching this manu^e^t^^ accord.
Sincerely,
GANG, ^'v^E, í^A^vØ^ & BROWN, INC.
ByKe4í^ S. Marks
l=
K5M:1)1
co: Jaan^e SiegeiLaura Síeg^l LarsenB^u^e RamerDon Eutso^^
236í72.t
cткв oз a^
EXHIBIT B 24
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 702-2 Filed 02/07/13 Page 24 of 47 Page ID #:15219
г.п^εx 8. θ εгow¡^Y +.лW
^ taa Øtluтн Rouвp áяьVб
ØжVб13ί.Y H1^ι9, ύM./iflP4NИ ЯO2Y2Pндиц (a чoT Yλт+aoФ6rмι.вκwr ι øι. <n ι n) τтт-•4äιaf
τ-^ιεxc(з ι4ι<;εx τwлиØм ι^^тл.ι зн^rй°г
τ_T6и , oлa4ωeT r9. αцo ι
σιппsж PH4+vεя тнд e'д ι4awι^Cв иπпτaя+пы п.w s®C3и 4ti POffiжιöi6 τ®:
7w)wGOptwг roo.(818λ 95d ..ιтöцьuв !
tCσ'v[π S. Mвcцσ
sx48ы ι >.=вπιь ιy - °sл44mлXC^ .
9f +5дpdд RYдгодmfHeьd (1M1CιiзdlηO VьгA Pw^o): 6
olVτaa
ι rv Oд®uιнιR^τ ιs ιJaSY P^EбE+YYЬO P вiOPCгυ-v.
PiжпдH Giι 1Y4ANK YtlU4 tNM HO+
пYBыY.
τиθ ιвi.^OнйлГ ιεςra POыi4вJμнσP ιЧ Tи ι d wл6XιM ιltl MPвl^б ι0 wYTOXИдY P1W1lCtWC ANC GpYΓ14kыTвпY ιгιЮ 0.gм
gπlYVи ιsпaнo¢a trыøY Γ0R
T uGV:ьτώTвÁÝ^Oгsáιv^p^TPØ^^п̂ ^TiwM¢ц XΛøЧÓ^éгsnf¢GPI^TÝW м̂бЙ̂åRáYйOT1̂^ И̂LLéÝKв̂пñatVátláΣбwPмιьпГ• пR^ьm^T^QV^ώ
й[[gqpрΡnnVVιι 4п YTXд 004в.ιυЧ^^ÓώΓλ.l в ιa4ГΛtPT4YPΛWXΦwпBOO4O ч'θьt бЯ9л+^^^X'øYюФ G®vв.ιUЧιι-wΛФЧ W д4ΛflΛ .дLυ̂чPXб 11Wл4.YV+TOιV
ιΦlYΓ^34YYFø3CИOЧl.кιл IXlTι.MиьHBG4P ι p^ω 'ц ,Y'OYww.TTыд 4XCY6IJλ6M144A^ ιwYMд Vй.YOвTM11Xб Y1ςH.^(йl.йы VVV.
TRANSMISS[ON REPORT
ϊ
TH[S DOCUMENT WAS CONFIRMED.(REDUCED SAMPLE ABOVE - SEE DETAILS BELOW)
^^ GOUNT ^^TOTAL PAGES SCANNED.TOT'ÁL PAGES CONFIRMED
**^ SENO **ж
No. REMOTF„ STAT[UN START...T.1лiE UUt2AT[ON #pAGCiS' h1UUE ^ RE51гL1'S '^^^..
1 818 у:a4 47G8 LO-18- λ U:3д3PM 3'35" 7/ 7 EC COhtPLE'TED ^^^..12flU0
7
No.: бPERλ7'10N NUλ)DER 48 : 48ü06PS SHI.ECFED EC : ERROR CΛRКECF 02': C)2 COAΩ,цìΓJ[CAλ10NPD ^ POLLGO 8Y RÊMO'ГE SF : STURE & FOR)fARD R1 ^ RELAY 1NIl't Λ'FE }2S ^ RÈLAY 5TAT10N ^M8 : BEND TO л1A1L$OX PC : P(HL1NG A КFλЭOTE MP ^ λiULT1-POW„[NG. RM ^ RECGIYE TU MG^WRY
тαrπι U:03'35`!VOTE:
GTRB O30ß
EXHIBIT B 25
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 702-2 Filed 02/07/13 Page 25 of 47 Page ID #:15220
EXHIBIT C
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 702-2 Filed 02/07/13 Page 26 of 47 Page ID #:15221
EXHIBIT C 26
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 702-2 Filed 02/07/13 Page 27 of 47 Page ID #:15222
EXHIBIT C 27
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 702-2 Filed 02/07/13 Page 28 of 47 Page ID #:15223
EXHIBIT D
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 702-2 Filed 02/07/13 Page 29 of 47 Page ID #:15224
EXHIBIT D 28
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 702-2 Filed 02/07/13 Page 30 of 47 Page ID #:15225
EXHIBIT D 29
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 702-2 Filed 02/07/13 Page 31 of 47 Page ID #:15226
EXHIBIT D 30
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 702-2 Filed 02/07/13 Page 32 of 47 Page ID #:15227
EXHIBIT D 31
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 702-2 Filed 02/07/13 Page 33 of 47 Page ID #:15228
EXHIBIT D 32
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 702-2 Filed 02/07/13 Page 34 of 47 Page ID #:15229
EXHIBIT D 33
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 702-2 Filed 02/07/13 Page 35 of 47 Page ID #:15230
EXHIBIT D 34
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 702-2 Filed 02/07/13 Page 36 of 47 Page ID #:15231
EXHIBIT D 35
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 702-2 Filed 02/07/13 Page 37 of 47 Page ID #:15232
EXHIBIT D 36
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 702-2 Filed 02/07/13 Page 38 of 47 Page ID #:15233
EXHIBIT D 37
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 702-2 Filed 02/07/13 Page 39 of 47 Page ID #:15234
EXHIBIT D 38
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 702-2 Filed 02/07/13 Page 40 of 47 Page ID #:15235
EXHIBIT D 39
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 702-2 Filed 02/07/13 Page 41 of 47 Page ID #:15236
EXHIBIT D 40
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 702-2 Filed 02/07/13 Page 42 of 47 Page ID #:15237
EXHIBIT D 41
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 702-2 Filed 02/07/13 Page 43 of 47 Page ID #:15238
EXHIBIT D 42
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 702-2 Filed 02/07/13 Page 44 of 47 Page ID #:15239
EXHIBIT D 43
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 702-2 Filed 02/07/13 Page 45 of 47 Page ID #:15240
EXHIBIT D 44
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 702-2 Filed 02/07/13 Page 46 of 47 Page ID #:15241
EXHIBIT D 45
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 702-2 Filed 02/07/13 Page 47 of 47 Page ID #:15242
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
[PROPOSED] STATEMENT OF
UNCONTROVERTED FACTS & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
DANIEL M. PETROCELLI (S.B. #097802) [email protected] MATTHEW T. KLINE (S.B. #211640) [email protected] CASSANDRA L. SETO (S.B. #246608) [email protected] O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, 7th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-6035 Telephone: (310) 553-6700 Facsimile: (310) 246-6779 Attorneys for the DC Comics Parties
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
LAURA SIEGEL LARSON,individually and as personal representative of the ESTATE OF JOANNE SIEGEL,
Plaintiff,
v.
WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC., DC COMICS, and DOES 1-10,
Defendants and Counterclaimants.
LAURA SIEGEL LARSON, individually and as personal representative of the ESTATE OF JOANNE SIEGEL,
Plaintiff,
v.
TIME WARNER INC., WARNER COMMUNICATIONS INC., WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC., WARNER BROS. TELEVISION PRODUCTION INC., DC COMICS, and DOES 1-10,
Defendants and Counterclaimants.
Case No. CV 04-8400 ODW (RZx)Case No. CV 04-8776 ODW (RZx) [PROPOSED] STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT DC COMICS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE SIEGEL SUPERMAN AND SUPERBOY CASES The Hon. Otis D. Wright II
Hearing Date: March 11, 2013 Hearing Time: 1:30 p.m. Courtroom: 11
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 702-3 Filed 02/07/13 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:15243
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 - [PROPOSED] STATEMENT OF
UNCONTROVERTED FACTS & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
After consideration of the papers in support of and in opposition to
defendants’ (collectively, “DC”) Motion For Summary Judgment In The Siegel
Superman And Superboy Cases, the Court hereby makes its findings of
uncontroverted facts and conclusions of law as follows:
UNCONTROVERTED FACTS
No. Uncontroverted Fact Evidence
1 The agreement set forth in Kevin Marks’ October 19,
2001, letter to John Schulman states:
“The Property” means all Superman, Superboy and related properties (including, for example, Supergirl, Steel, Lois & Clark and Smallville), and the Spectre property, and includes all pre- and post-termination works (including the so-called Superman library), characters, names and trademarks relating to the Property....
The Siegel Family would transfer all of its rights in the “Superman” and “Spectre” properties (including “Superboy”), resulting in 100% ownership to D.C. Comics, as between the Siegel Family and D.C. Comics.
Declaration of Daniel M. Petrocelli (“Petrocelli Decl.”), Ex. B at 19, 21; Larson v. Warner Bros. Entm’t, Inc., 2012 WL 6822241, at *1-2 (9th Cir. Jan. 10, 2013).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
As set forth in DC’s summary judgment papers, Proposed Order, and
Proposed Final Judgments:
1. On January 10, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit reversed Judge Larson’s March 26, 2008, partial summary judgment order
and held that, “as a matter of law,” plaintiff Laura Siegel Larson (referred to herein
in her individual capacity and as personal representative of the Estate of Joanne
Siegel as “Larson”) entered into a settlement agreement with DC on October 19,
2001. Larson, 2012 WL 6822241, at *1. “Statements from the attorneys for both
parties establish that the parties had undertaken years of negotiations …, and that
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 702-3 Filed 02/07/13 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #:15244
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 - [PROPOSED] STATEMENT OF
UNCONTROVERTED FACTS & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
the letter” sent by Larson’s attorney, Kevin Marks, on October 19, 2001,
“accurately reflected the material terms they had orally agreed to.” Id. The Ninth
Circuit directed this Court to “reconsider DC’s third and fourth counterclaims in
light of our holding that the October 19, 2001, letter created an agreement.” Id. at
*2.
2. Consistent with the Ninth Circuit’s opinion and instructions on remand,
id. at *1-2, this Court may now enter final judgment in DC’s favor in the above-
entitled cases: (1) the “Siegel Superman” case, Case No. CV-04-8400; and (2) the
“Siegel Superboy” case, Case No. CV-04-8776. In the parties’ October 19, 2001,
settlement agreement, Larson (and her family) “transfer[red] all of [their] rights” to
DC, “resulting in 100% ownership to D.C. Comics.” Petrocelli Decl. Ex. B at 21;
Larson, 2012 WL 6822241, at *1. This complete transfer bars Larson’s remaining
claims in the Siegel Superman and Superboy cases and entitles DC to judgment on
its Fourth Counterclaims in the Siegel Superman and Superboy cases, which seek a
declaration confirming the October 19, 2001, settlement agreement against Larson.
DC’s remaining counterclaims are dismissed, without prejudice, as moot.
Therefore:
a. Larson’s Claims in the Siegel Superman Case
i. Larson’s First Claim for Relief, for “Declaratory Relief re: Termination,”
is DENIED, and summary judgment is hereby entered in DC’s favor and against
Larson on this claim. See also DN 293, 560.
ii. Larson’s Second Claim for Relief, for “Declaratory Relief re: Profits from
Recaptured Copyrights,” is DENIED, and summary judgment is hereby entered in
DC’s favor and against Larson on this claim. See also DN 293, 560.
iii. Larson’s Third Claim for Relief, for “Declaratory Relief re: Use of the
‘Superman’ Crest,” is DENIED, and summary judgment is hereby entered in DC’s
favor and against Larson on this claim. See also DN 293, 560.
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 702-3 Filed 02/07/13 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #:15245
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 - [PROPOSED] STATEMENT OF
UNCONTROVERTED FACTS & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
iv. Larson’s Fourth Claim for Relief, for “Accounting for Profits,” is
DENIED, and summary judgment is hereby entered in DC’s favor and against
Larson on this claim. See also DN 293, 560.
b. DC’s Counterclaims in the Siegel Superman Case
i. DC’s Fourth Counterclaim, for “Declaratory Relief Regarding the [2001
Settlement] Agreement,” is GRANTED, and summary judgment is hereby entered
in DC’s favor and against Larson on this counterclaim. The Court declares that,
under the parties’ October 19, 2001, settlement agreement, Larson and her family
transferred to DC, worldwide and in perpetuity, any and all rights, title, and interest,
including all copyright interests, which they may have in Superman, Superboy, and
Spectre. Petrocelli Decl. Ex. B at 19, 21; Larson, 2012 WL 6822241, at *1-2.
ii. DC’s First, Second, Third, Fifth, and Sixth Counterclaims are
DISMISSED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AS MOOT.
a. Larson’s Claims in the Siegel Superboy Case
i. Larson’s First Claim for Relief, for “Copyright Infringement,” is
DENIED, and summary judgment is hereby entered in DC’s favor and against
Larson on this claim. See also DN 151 at 62; 175 at 1; Sept. 17, 2007 Hr’g Tr. at
4:6-5:4, 27:21-22.
ii. Larson’s Second Claim for Relief, for “Declaratory Relief re:
Termination,” is DENIED, and summary judgment is hereby entered in DC’s favor
and against Larson on this claim. See also DN 170, 560.
iii. Larson’s Third Claim for Relief, for “Violation of the Lanham Act §
43(a)(1)(B),” is DENIED, and summary judgment is hereby entered in DC’s favor
and against Larson on this claim. See also DN 174, 560.
iv. Larson’s Fourth Claim for Relief, for “Violation of California Business
and Professions Code, §§ 17200 et seq.,” is DENIED, and summary judgment is
hereby entered in DC’s favor and against Larson on this claim. See also DN 174,
560.
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 702-3 Filed 02/07/13 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #:15246
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 - [PROPOSED] STATEMENT OF
UNCONTROVERTED FACTS & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
v. Larson’s Fifth Claim for Relief, for “Injunctive Relief,” is DENIED, and
summary judgment is hereby entered in DC’s favor and against Larson on this
claim. See also DN 174, 560.
b. DC’s Counterclaims in the Siegel Superboy Case
i. DC’s Fourth Counterclaim, for “Declaratory Relief Regarding the [2001
Settlement] Agreement,” is GRANTED, and summary judgment is hereby entered
in DC’s favor and against Larson on this counterclaim. The Court declares that,
under the parties’ October 19, 2001, settlement agreement, Larson and her family
transferred to DC, worldwide and in perpetuity, any and all rights, title, and interest,
including all copyright interests, which they may have in Superman, Superboy, and
Spectre. Petrocelli Decl. Ex. B at 19, 21; Larson, 2012 WL 6822241, at *1-2.
ii. DC’s First, Second, Third, Fifth, and Sixth Counterclaims are
DISMISSED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AS MOOT.
Dated: ______________________ Honorable Otis D. Wright, II Judge, United States District Court
OMM_US:71281336
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 702-3 Filed 02/07/13 Page 5 of 5 Page ID #:15247
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
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DC’S MOT. FOR SUMM. J.
DANIEL M. PETROCELLI (S.B. #097802) [email protected] MATTHEW T. KLINE (S.B. #211640) [email protected] CASSANDRA L. SETO (S.B. #246608) [email protected] O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, 7th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-6035 Telephone: (310) 553-6700 Facsimile: (310) 246-6779 Attorneys for the DC Comics Parties
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
LAURA SIEGEL LARSON,individually and as personal representative of the ESTATE OF JOANNE SIEGEL,
Plaintiff,
v.
WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC., DC COMICS, and DOES 1-10,
Defendants and Counterclaimants.
LAURA SIEGEL LARSON, individually and as personal representative of the ESTATE OF JOANNE SIEGEL,
Plaintiff,
v.
TIME WARNER INC., WARNER COMMUNICATIONS INC., WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC., WARNER BROS. TELEVISION PRODUCTION INC., DC COMICS, and DOES 1-10,
Defendants and Counterclaimants.
Case No. CV 04-8400 ODW (RZx)Case No. CV 04-8776 ODW (RZx) [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT DC COMICS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE SIEGEL SUPERMAN AND SUPERBOY CASES The Hon. Otis D. Wright II
Hearing Date: March 11, 2013 Hearing Time: 1:30 p.m. Courtroom: 11
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 702-4 Filed 02/07/13 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:15248
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 - [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DC’S MOT. FOR SUMM. J.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that DC Comics’ Motion For Summary
Judgment In The Siegel Superman And Superboy Cases is GRANTED.
The Court will enter DC Comics’ proposed judgments in Case Nos. CV-04-
8400 and CV-04-8776.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: __________________ ____________________________________ Honorable Otis D. Wright, II
Judge, United States District Court
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 702-4 Filed 02/07/13 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:15249
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
[PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT
DANIEL M. PETROCELLI (S.B. #097802) [email protected] MATTHEW T. KLINE (S.B. #211640) [email protected] CASSANDRA L. SETO (S.B. #246608) [email protected] O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, 7th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-6035 Telephone: (310) 553-6700 Facsimile: (310) 246-6779 Attorneys for DC Comics Parties
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
LAURA SIEGEL LARSON,individually and as personal representative of the ESTATE OF JOANNE SIEGEL,
Plaintiff,
v.
WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC., DC COMICS, and DOES 1-10,
Defendants and Counterclaimants.
Case No. CV 04-8400 ODW (RZx) [PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE SIEGEL SUPERMAN CASE The Hon. Otis D. Wright II
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 702-5 Filed 02/07/13 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:15250
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 - [PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT
On January 10, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit reversed Judge Larson’s March 26, 2008, partial summary judgment order
and held that, “as a matter of law,” plaintiff Laura Siegel Larson (referred to herein
in her individual capacity and as personal representative of the Estate of Joanne
Siegel as “Larson”) entered into a settlement agreement with defendants
(collectively, “DC”) on October 19, 2001. Larson v. Warner Bros. Entm’t Inc.,
2012 WL 6822241, at *1 (9th Cir. Jan. 10, 2013). “Statements from the attorneys
for both parties establish that the parties had undertaken years of negotiations …,
and that the letter” sent by Larson’s attorney, Kevin Marks, on October 19, 2001,
“accurately reflected the material terms they had orally agreed to.” Id. The Ninth
Circuit directed this Court to “reconsider DC’s third and fourth counterclaims in
light of our holding that the October 19, 2001, letter created an agreement.” Id. at
*2.
Consistent with the Ninth Circuit’s opinion and instructions on remand, id. at
*1-2, this Court may now enter final judgment in DC’s favor in two of three long-
running Superman cases presently before this Court: (1) the above-entitled “Siegel
Superman” case, Case No. CV-04-8400; and (2) the related “Siegel Superboy” case,
Case No. CV-04-8776 (addressed in a separate Final Judgment filed concurrently
herewith). In the parties’ October 19, 2001, settlement agreement, Larson (and her
family) “transfer[red] all of [their] rights” to DC, “resulting in 100% ownership to
D.C. Comics.” Declaration of Daniel M. Petrocelli (“Petrocelli Decl.”) Ex. B at 21;
Larson, 2012 WL 6822241, at *1. This complete transfer bars Larson’s remaining
claims in this case and entitles DC to judgment on its Fourth Counterclaim in this
case, which seeks a declaration confirming the October 19, 2001, settlement
agreement against Larson. DC’s remaining counterclaims are dismissed, without
prejudice, as moot. Therefore:
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 702-5 Filed 02/07/13 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:15251
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 - [PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT
A. Larson’s Claims
IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Larson’s First Claim for Relief, for
“Declaratory Relief re: Termination,” is DENIED, and judgment is hereby entered
in DC’s favor and against Larson on this claim. See also DN 293, 560.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Larson’s Second
Claim for Relief, for “Declaratory Relief re: Profits from Recaptured Copyrights,”
is DENIED, and judgment is hereby entered in DC’s favor and against Larson on
this claim. See also DN 293, 560.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Larson’s Third Claim
for Relief, for “Declaratory Relief re: Use of the ‘Superman’ Crest,” is DENIED,
and judgment is hereby entered in DC’s favor and against Larson on this claim. See
also DN 293, 560.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Larson’s Fourth Claim
for Relief, for “Accounting for Profits,” is DENIED, and judgment is hereby
entered in DC’s favor and against Larson on this claim. See also DN 293, 560.
B. DC’s Counterclaims
IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that DC’s Fourth Counterclaim, for
“Declaratory Relief Regarding the [2001 Settlement] Agreement,” is GRANTED,
and judgment is hereby entered in DC’s favor and against Larson on this
counterclaim. The Court declares that, under the parties’ October 19, 2001,
settlement agreement, Larson and her family transferred to DC, worldwide and in
perpetuity, any and all rights, title, and interest, including all copyright interests,
which they may have in Superman, Superboy, and Spectre. Petrocelli Decl. Ex. B
at 19, 21; Larson, 2012 WL 6822241, at *1-2.
IT IS ACCORDINGLY FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and
DECREED that DC’s First, Second, Third, Fifth, and Sixth Counterclaims are
DISMISSED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AS MOOT.
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 702-5 Filed 02/07/13 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:15252
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 - [PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: __________________ ____________________________________ Honorable Otis D. Wright, II
Judge, United States District Court OMM_US:71247304
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 702-5 Filed 02/07/13 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #:15253
EX PARTE APPLICATION
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
30
31
Marc Toberoff (State Bar No. 188547) [email protected] Keith G. Adams (State Bar No. 240497) [email protected] Pablo D. Arredondo (State Bar No. 241142) [email protected] David Harris (State Bar. 255557) [email protected] TOBEROFF & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 22337 Pacific Coast Highway, #348 Malibu, California, 90265 Telephone: (310) 246-3333 Fax: (310) 246-3101 Attorneys for Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant, Laura Siegel Larson, individually and as personal representative of the Estate of Joanne Siegel
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - WESTERN DIVISION
LAURA SIEGEL LARSON,
individually and as personal
representative of the ESTATE OF
JOANNE SIEGEL,
Plaintiff,
v.
WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT
INC., DC COMICS, and DOES 1-10,
Defendants and
Counterclaimants.
Case No: 04-CV-08400 ODW (RZx) Case No: 04-CV-08776 ODW (RZx) Hon. Otis D. Wright II, U.S.D.J. Hon. Ralph Zarefsky, U.S.M.J.
PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE OPPOSITION AND HEARING DATES RE: DC COMICS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Case No. 04-CV-08400, Dkt. 702; Case No. 04-CV-08776, Dkt. 222) Declaration of Keith Adams and [Proposed] Order Filed concurrently Noticed Date: March 11, 2013 Noticed Time: 1:30 p.m. Noticed Place: Courtroom 11 Requested Date: March 25, 2013 Requested Time: 1:30 p.m. Requested Place: Courtroom 11
LAURA SIEGEL LARSON,
individually and as personal
representative of the ESTATE OF
JOANNE SIEGEL,
Plaintiff,
v.
TIME WARNER INC., WARNER
COMMUNICATIONS INC.,
WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT
INC., WARNER BROS. TELEVISION
PRODUCTION INC., DC COMICS,
and DOES 1-10,
Defendants and
Counterclaimants.
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 704 Filed 02/07/13 Page 1 of 9 Page ID #:15262
1
EX PARTE APPLICATION
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
30
31
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that plaintiff-counterclaim defendant Laura Siegel
Larson (“Plaintiff”) hereby respectfully applies to this Court ex parte to reschedule
the hearing date from March 11, 2013 to March 25, 2013 on the two motions for
summary judgment (Case No. 04-CV-08400, Dkt. 702; Case No. 04-CV-08776, Dkt.
222) improperly and prematurely filed today by defendant-counterclaimant DC
Comics (“DC”).
Good cause exists to grant this application: (1) under Local Rule 7-3’s express
terms, the first date for DC to have filed its motions was February 19, 2013 – not
February 7, 2013 – for hearing on March 25, 2013, because the parties’ meet-and-
confer occurred on February 6, 2013, and Rule 7-3 requires that such conference be
held “at least ten (10) days prior to the filing of the motion”; (2) this Court’s Standing
Order expressly states that “the court expects that the party moving for summary
judgment will provide more than the minimum twenty‐eight (28) day notice,” and
DC’s rushed motion provides only eight days for Plaintiff to prepare oppositions to
the two summary judgment motions; (3) there are already four substantive motions
set for hearing before this Court on March 11, 2013 in the DC Comics case (Case No.
10-CV-03633 ODW (RZx)); (4) DC’s jammed schedule conflicts with numerous
other commitments of Plaintiff’s counsel; and (5) pursuant to the governing
scheduling orders, the motion cut-off date in both cases passed in 2007, and DC
should have waited for a new scheduling order following the parties’ submission of a
joint status report per the Court’s order. Case No. 04-CV-08400, Dkt. 122, 701; Case
No. 04-CV-08776, Dkt. 115, 221.
In light of the above, Plaintiff respectfully requests a brief continuance of the
hearing date from the noticed date of March 11, 2013, to the correct date of March
25, 2013, or to any time thereafter convenient for the Court, and a continuance of
Plaintiff’s associated opposition deadlines.
In accordance with Local Rule 7-19.1, on February 7, 2013, Plaintiff’s counsel
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 704 Filed 02/07/13 Page 2 of 9 Page ID #:15263
2
EX PARTE APPLICATION
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
30
31
advised DC’s counsel Matt Kline, of O’Melveny & Myers, LLP, 1999 Avenue of the
Stars, 7th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90017; Tel: (310) 553-6700; e-mail:
[email protected], of this ex parte application. Declaration of Keith Adams, Ex. C.
Mr. Kline stated that DC would oppose this application. Id., Ex. D.
This application is based on this Notice, the attached memorandum of points
and authorities, the Declaration of Keith Adams, all of the pleadings, files and
records in this proceeding, all matters of which this Court may take judicial notice,
and any argument or evidence that may be presented to or considered by the Court.
Dated: February 7, 2013
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Marc Toberoff
TOBEROFF & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiff,
Laura Siegel Larson, individually and as
personal representative of the Estate of
Joanne Siegel
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 704 Filed 02/07/13 Page 3 of 9 Page ID #:15264
3
EX PARTE APPLICATION
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
30
31
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Laura Siegel Larson (“Plaintiff”) hereby respectfully applies to this
Court ex parte to reschedule the hearing date on the two motions for summary
judgment (C.D. Cal. Case No. 04-CV-08400 ODW (RZx) (“Siegel Superman”), Dkt.
702; C.D. Cal. Case No. 04-CV-08776 ODW (RZx) (“Siegel Superboy”), Dkt. 222;
“Motions”) that were improperly filed by defendant-counterclaimant DC Comics
(“DC”) in violation of Local Rule 7-3 and this Court’s Standing Order.
DC’s improper filings reflect a concerted strategy to jam Plaintiff’s time to
respond and rush these two cases to a premature judgment. With a hearing date of
March 11, 2013, Plaintiff’s oppositions to the two motions for summary judgment
would be due February 15, 2013, giving Plaintiff only eight days to prepare
oppositions.
The hearing date should be reset, as DC’s filing and noticed hearing date: (a)
are blatantly improper under Local Rule 7-3; (b) violate this Court’s Standing Order
as to the timing of summary judgment motions; (c) willfully create an unwieldy
logjam of motions on March 11, when four other motions are set for hearing in the
closely-related case, DC Comics v. Pacific Pictures Corp., et al., C.D. Cal. Case No.
10-CV-03633 ODW (RZx) (“DC Comics”), and (d) conflict with numerous other
commitments of Plaintiff’s counsel. The Motions were also filed well after the 2007
motion cut-off date in both cases, and DC should have waited for a new scheduling
order following the parties’ submission of a joint status report per the Court’s
February 1, 2013 order. Siegel Superman, Dkt. 701; Siegel Superboy, Dkt. 221.
Plaintiff respectfully requests that the hearing date of the Motions (and all
associated deadlines) be continued by a mere two weeks, from March 11, 2013 to
March 25, 2013, or to a date thereafter convenient for the Court.
///
///
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 704 Filed 02/07/13 Page 4 of 9 Page ID #:15265
4
EX PARTE APPLICATION
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
30
31
ARGUMENT
1. DC’s Filing and Hearing Date Violate Local Rule 7-3: Local Rule 7-
3 requires that meet-and-confers on motions occur “at least ten (10) days prior to the
filing of the motion.” The meet-and-confer on DC’s Motions occurred on February
6, 2013. See Declaration of Keith Adams (“AD”), Ex. A at 5 (DC: requesting “a
time to meet and confer”), 3-4 (Plaintiff: “We are available this Wednesday
[February 6, 2013] at 11:00 a.m., or this Thursday at 12:00 p.m., to meet and
confer.”), 4 (DC: “We’ll speak to you at 11am tomorrow.”), Ex. C.
Accordingly, the first day for DC to file its motion pursuant to Local Rule 7-3
was February 19, 2013 (given the President’s Day holiday). Under the Rules, a
motion filed on February 19, 2013 could be set for hearing no earlier than March 25,
2013. L.R. 6-1. DC’s filing of two summary judgment motions on February 7, 2013,
one day after the parties’ February 6 meet-and-confer, for hearing on March 11,
2013, was blatantly improper and well outside the dates mandated by the Local
Rules.
DC’s stated justification for this willful failure was the patently false notion
that its counsel, Daniel Petrocelli, had supposedly already met and conferred in
telephone conversations with Plaintiff’s counsel, Marc Toberoff, and Richard
Kendall, Mr. Toberoff’s counsel in the DC Comics case. AD, Ex. A at 3.
In reality, Mr. Petrocelli had stated in a largely unrelated telephone
conversation with Mr. Toberoff about organizing settlement talks that DC would file
a “motion for entry of judgment,” pretending that the Ninth Circuit had remanded
with directions to enter judgment, when it expressly had not done so. Id., Ex. A at 2-
3. Mr. Petrocelli then wrote a follow-up e-mail on January 28, reiterating that DC
intended to “move the Court to enter judgment.” Id., Ex. A at 6-7. On January
31, Mr. Petrocelli had a telephone conversation with Mr. Kendall (who does not
represent any party in these two cases) about coordinating a settlement meeting. Id.,
Ex. A at 2. When Mr. Kendall asked Mr. Petrocelli whether DC intended to file a
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 704 Filed 02/07/13 Page 5 of 9 Page ID #:15266
5
EX PARTE APPLICATION
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
30
31
summary judgment motion, Mr. Petrocelli responded that it “might seek summary
judgment,” but that he was frankly not yet sure of what motion it would file. Id.
Obviously, DC cannot use casual references in settlement conversations to
evade its meet-and-confer obligations under Local Rule 7-3, especially when DC was
openly vague about the sort of motion it intended to file, and did not even specify the
claim or claims on which it intended to move.
On January 31, Mr. Toberoff therefore asked for clarification of DC’s planned
motion and “the claim or claims” that DC intended to move on. AD, Ex. A at 6. On
February 1, Mr. Petrocelli responded by clarifying for the very first time that DC
would move “for summary judgment” – but despite plaintiff’s request, again failed to
state which claim(s) DC would move on. AD, Ex. A at 5. On February 4, DC’s
counsel, Matt Kline, informed Plaintiff for the first time that DC would move for
summary judgment on its Fourth Counterclaim only, and move to dismiss its
remaining counterclaims as allegedly moot. AD, Ex. A at 4-5.
On February 5, the parties then expressly scheduled a meet-and-confer
pursuant Local Rule 7-3 for February 6, 2012 which occurred at 11 a.m. that day.
DC filed two summary judgment motions at noon the next day, February 7, 2013, in
willful violation of the 10-day grace period mandated by Local Rule 7-3.
2. The Hearing Date Violates This Court’s Standing Order: Paragraph
6(d) of this Court’s Standing Order states that “the court expects that the party
moving for summary judgment will provide more than the minimum twenty‐eight
(28) day notice for motions” (emphasis added).
Given the importance of a potentially dispositive summary judgment motion,
the Standing Order provides both the Court with more time to review summary
judgment briefing, and the opposing party with a more reasonable amount of time
than the mere seven days allotted for ordinary motions (see L.R. 6-1, 7-9) to prepare
its opposition.
Accordingly, in filing prior summary judgment motions in the DC Comics
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 704 Filed 02/07/13 Page 6 of 9 Page ID #:15267
6
EX PARTE APPLICATION
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
30
31
case, both sides have set hearing dates that provided the other side with more time to
file their oppositions. DC Comics, Dkt. 458 (14 days), 478 (35 days), 577 (11 days).
Nonetheless, DC improperly filed its two summary judgment motions with a March
11, 2013 hearing date, affording Plaintiff only 8 days – from February 7 to February
15, 2013 – to prepare two oppositions, willfully violating the spirit of this Court’s
Standing Order.
3. The Hearing Date Creates Severe Calendar Conflicts: DC’s improper
March 11, 2013 hearing date burdens the Court’s already congested calendar on that
date, and presents considerable scheduling conflicts for Plaintiff’s counsel as well.
There are four separate, substantive motions, all set for hearing before this
Court on March 11, 2013 in the DC Comics case. DC Comics, Dkt. 559, 574 (DC’s
motion for attorney’s fees), 569 (defendants’ motion for review), 576 (defendants’
motion for summary judgment); 573, 575 (DC’s motion for an evidentiary hearing re:
sanctions).
On January 6 at 9:30 pm DC also served a 34-page discovery motion in DC
Comics. AD, Ex. B. That motion has an opposition deadline of February 13, 2013
(id.; Local Rule 37-1) and is set for hearing before Magistrate Zarefsky on March 11,
2013.
In the pending DC Comics appeal, Plaintiff’s counsel must submit an opening
brief and excerpts of record by March 5, 2013, which will consume a considerable
amount of time. Plaintiff’s counsel also represents the children of recording artist
Ray Charles, in The Ray Charles Foundation v. Raenee Robinson, et al., C.D. Cal.
Case No. 12-CV-02725 ABC (FFMx), and has been ordered to submit a fee
application by no later than February 11, 2013 (AD, ¶2), after the Court dismissed all
claims on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion and motion to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP
law.
DC’s improper scheduling of its Motions for March 11, 2013, in violation of
Local Rule 7-3 and this Court’s Standing Order, was made with the obvious intent to
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 704 Filed 02/07/13 Page 7 of 9 Page ID #:15268
7
EX PARTE APPLICATION
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
30
31
jam Plaintiff Laura Siegel Larson on her time to respond to DC’s two summary
judgment motions, and in total disregard for this Court’s already-congested March 11
calendar.
4. The Motions Were Filed After The Cut-Off Date: The deadline to file
summary judgment motions passed long ago, on April 30, 2007, in both cases. Siegel
Superman, Dkt. 122; Siegel Superboy, Dkt. 115. Given the Ninth Circuit’s January
10, 2013 ruling in the Siegel Superman case, it makes sense to enter a new scheduling
order for both cases, so that they may be resolved in an orderly fashion. This Court
sensibly ordered the parties to submit a status report by February 25, 2013, with a
“brief case-management proposal going forward.” Siegel Superman, Dkt. 701; Siegel
Superboy, Dkt. 221. Instead, DC barreled ahead without waiting for the Court to set
a new schedule.
5. DC’s Pretexts for Opposing This Application: DC gave several faint
pretexts for opposing this application. AD, Ex. D. None have merit.
a. DC argued that the parties had already met and conferred prior to
February 6 (id. at 17), but this is false as set forth above.
b. DC complained that because President’s Day falls on Monday, February
18, DC has 11 days, rather than 14, to oppose defendants’ motion for summary
judgment in DC Comics (which complied with Local Rule 7-3). AD, Ex. D at 17;
DC Comics, Dkt. 577. DC never asked for an extension. Had it done so, Defendants
would have been happy to stipulate, subject to the Court’s approval, to DC
electronically filing its opposition on February 18, so as to give DC a full 14 days to
prepare its opposition. In any event, both of these dates afford DC far more time
than the mere 8 days it gave Ms. Larson to oppose two summary judgment motions,
and do nothing to relieve DC’s violation of Local Rule 7-3.
c. To distract from its misconduct, DC oddly argued that counsel somehow
“misled the Ninth Circuit about its time commitments.” AD, Ex. D at 17-18. In
connection with the pending appeal in DC Comics, Plaintiff (among others) moved
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 704 Filed 02/07/13 Page 8 of 9 Page ID #:15269
8
EX PARTE APPLICATION
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
30
31
for a brief, 18-day extension of time to file her opening brief, which the Ninth Circuit
granted. 9th Cir. Appeal No. 12-57245, Dkt. 9. DC’s ridiculous accusation is that
counsel misled the Circuit simply because counsel did not list this summary
judgment motion in DC Comics among its sampling of conflicting time
commitments. The truth is that the parties met and conferred on that summary
judgment motion back in November 2012 (Dkt. 577 at 1), and much of the drafting of
that motion had been completed in the interim. AD, Ex. C at 16. There was no
misleading of the Ninth Circuit.
d. DC also cited the power of this Court to control its own docket, which
Plaintiff has never contested. AD, Ex. D at 17.
CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court continue
the March 11, 2013 hearing date (and all associated deadlines) on DC’s Motions to
March 25, 2013, or to any time thereafter that is convenient for the Court.
Dated: February 7, 2013 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Marc Toberoff
TOBEROFF & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiff,
Laura Siegel Larson, individually and as
personal representative of the Estate of
Joanne Siegel
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 704 Filed 02/07/13 Page 9 of 9 Page ID #:15270
DECLARATION OF KEITH ADAMS IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION
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
Marc Toberoff (State Bar No. 188547) [email protected] Keith G. Adams (State Bar No. 240497) [email protected] Pablo D. Arredondo (State Bar No. 241142) [email protected] David Harris (State Bar. 255557) [email protected] TOBEROFF & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 22337 Pacific Coast Highway, #348 Malibu, California, 90265 Telephone: (310) 246-3333 Fax: (310) 246-3101 Attorneys for Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant, Laura Siegel Larson, individually and as personal representative of the Estate of Joanne Siegel
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - WESTERN DIVISION
LAURA SIEGEL LARSON,
individually and as personal
representative of the ESTATE OF
JOANNE SIEGEL,
Plaintiff,
v.
WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT
INC., DC COMICS, and DOES 1-10,
Defendants and
Counterclaimants.
Case No: 04-CV-08400 ODW (RZx) Case No: 04-CV-08776 ODW (RZx) Hon. Otis D. Wright II, U.S.D.J. Hon. Ralph Zarefsky, U.S.M.J.
DECLARATION OF KEITH ADAMS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE OPPOSITION AND HEARING DATES RE: DC COMICS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Case No. 04-CV-08400, Dkt. 702; Case No. 04-CV-08776, Dkt. 222) Ex Parte Application and [Proposed] Order Filed concurrently Noticed Date: March 11, 2013 Noticed Time: 1:30 p.m. Noticed Place: Courtroom 11 Requested Date: March 25, 2013 Requested Time: 1:30 p.m. Requested Place: Courtroom 11
LAURA SIEGEL LARSON,
individually and as personal
representative of the ESTATE OF
JOANNE SIEGEL,
Plaintiff,
v.
TIME WARNER INC., WARNER
COMMUNICATIONS INC.,
WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT
INC., WARNER BROS. TELEVISION
PRODUCTION INC., DC COMICS,
and DOES 1-10,
Defendants and
Counterclaimants.
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 704-1 Filed 02/07/13 Page 1 of 19 Page ID #:15271
1
DECLARATION OF KEITH ADAMS IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION
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 plaintiff-counterclaim defendant Laura Siegel Larson, individually and
as personal representative of the Estate of Joanne Siegel (“Plaintiff”), in the above-
captioned actions, and submit this declaration in support of Plaintiff’s Ex Parte
Application To Continue Opposition And Hearing Dates.
2. Plaintiff’s counsel represents the defendants, the children of recording
artist Ray Charles, in The Ray Charles Foundation v. Raenee Robinson, et al., C.D.
Cal. Case No. 12-CV-2725 ABC (FFMx), and has been ordered to submit a fee
application by no later than February 11, 2013.
3. Attached hereto as Exhibit “A” is a true and correct copy of a January 28
– February 6, 2013 e-mail chain among Marc Toberoff, counsel for Plaintiff, Daniel
Petrocelli, counsel for defendants-counterclaimants DC Comics and Warner Bros.
Entertainment Inc. (“Warner”), and others.
4. Attached hereto as Exhibit “B” is a true and correct copy of a February
6, 2013 e-mail and a notice of motion attached thereto from Jason Tokoro, counsel
for Warner, to me, in the related case, DC Comics v. Pacific Pictures Corp., et al.,
Case No. 10-CV-03633 ODW (RZx).
5. Attached hereto as Exhibit “C” is a true and correct copy of a February
7, 2013 letter from me to Matt Kline, counsel for Warner.
6. Attached hereto as Exhibit “D” is a true and correct copy of a February
7, 2013 e-mail from Matt Kline to me.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed on February 7, 2013, at Malibu, California.
Keith G. Adams
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 704-1 Filed 02/07/13 Page 2 of 19 Page ID #:15272
����������� �������������������������
�������������������������������
������� ����!�������������� ��������������������������
������������ ������� ����� ����!!�����!���
"���#�����������$�����#���%����������������#&����"�!!�����#���!����������'���(�)���!
������!����� ����!!�����!�����$�*���+����!���(����!����� ����!!�����!����������)������
�%������������ ����!!�����!�����,��(����'�������������������� ������
�����
�
-.���������!��������������*��/���!%����������!�$�����������(�!�0�����������!%�������0��(�/.����(�!
*��/�!.�1�����0��0��������.����������(������/!�/.�����!�����2����������0��(�2���!� ��(��!��
��.����������0��$"�0���� ������!�����������0�����������(��".�����/.�������!
�
)�����2(�!���!��*���
�
�����'����
�
�������������������� ������������������������ ��������
����������������������������� � ��!�"�
���#� �������$%
����"������ ��&�� �'�(����)��������'�# �$�*����'�&�+ ��,��� �'�"�����*�������'�- �$����#�����
� ������-��.������+��������/�����0���1��2���
�
�
�����
�(����%��!�������!����/.������������.���.���$� ������!� ������3�!�����$"�"���!�4# �����#5�%������ �����
����� ��!.����/�1.�2������(�!������/������.��/����� ����1.!��(����2���!�(��.����#����������� ��#��� ������
���/������.��/�6����0��2�/�*�����!�7,�89���0(��(��������!�����9��/�2�����%������� ��� ����2���(.2(�/.�
��!����������������%�!���� .!�����������!������������!���(��2����������(��,.��!
$������������������0(���0��0����!%�����2���.��!�(��.���2�!��������������!���(��� ������0.�������2���#����
��������1.�2�����#������2��!�� ��(��:���(�"���.���(������������0��(���������!���������1.�2������0(�������������
$��;!�<��.��/��=��9����������������������(���(��0.���#�*���(��".�����������1.�2����#�
>������ ������/�$����'�������40(���!�/.���0����!������%��!�����(��%������ ��!�7��!������/��(���%���/���
������5��(���$���(�������*��!�����0��(�$������.��!��������������!�����0(��(�$���!�������/���!������� �����;!
�������������1.�2������$�����!����(���0(�������� ������(�����������������2�����0(��(������0�!���!.����/
1.�2����������$�����!%������(���(��0�!����!.���/�����.���(������#��2(�#������!.����/�1.�2���������
�������������� �������� ������ �������� ��������������������� ��� !""� ���#��#������"� ��"$"%"&$�'(��)' *+�,-*(+�����.' ��� ����
%����/ ("/"(0%+�%(!+/���
EXHIBIT A
2
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 704-1 Filed 02/07/13 Page 3 of 19 Page ID #:15273
�(�� ��!�������%������ �0�!��� ������(��� ������0.������ ��������2�������� ��!.����/�1.�2�����0�!����$��;!
����.��/����������������0(��(�!����� ���������*���!%��� /�0(��(������!� ������������������*����?�*�.!�/�����
��(�!��%�!!��2�������9����������� ������!�������!.�!���.��� �� �����;!����2����!���%�%���/������������ ��
.������(��7����,.��!
��.�2�� ������������!�������!���%�%����.!(��� ����2���������(�������(��,.��!
������� ���!��*�!�������2(�!
�
����
�
�
?�� �����������������������������&����"�!!��������!���������0����
����������������������� �����������������������������
�
�����������������������������
�
'���(�
�
�(�!��� ���!��(���0��!%���0��(�/.����/���������2��(������� ��!.����/�1.�2�����$"�0���� �����(�!������/�����(�
���������!�!
�
-.������������(����!�7��!���!���!��*��2�@�����������.����������������/������ ���2.����!�A��.���� .!������B%����
0(����(!����2.����!�������(0��(�/���%������/�!%��� ���"�������".���������������!!�������(���0���� ��%�%!��
1.�2����!��(���0��!����/.�
�
-.���!�!�����(���$"��!���C.������/�7����,.���89����0���������/!� ������/��� ������!������ ��!.����/
1.�2������)!�>�%������.����(�!��2���!��(����/�%��������$��������������(�!�(������/�!.�!�����*����!�.!!��!�0��(
��������� �����$����'�������40(��������������!%�����2� ������5���.��$"D!������!������(��:���(�"���.��D!
<��.��/������������.���2��)����!�/.���0��0��(�*����%������/���C.�!�����(���/.������� /���/�!%��� ����1�����!
/.�(�*����$"D!������99�����.���2����$��D!�<��.��/��=��9��������0�99��.��/.�(�*��!���� �!��/��� .!����>������
/.�0.�������*����� �����(��!.%%!����� ��!�!��� ������!�0.����!!�����(���/.���9�.�!���!(�����0��(�$���
�(�!���/%�!� �2���!�99����� �0(��(����������������2�������2�����/�����!��.���2������������*����2��99�������%�%���
����0��0����!(0��(��".���� ��0������!��%%��!���(���.��!� �(0�/.�*��������(��$�!������".��D!�7����,.��!����
��!�����(��:���(�"���.�����.��/.��!�(��.������� ����2��(��!.����/�1.�2����������/.������(�!�0�����������
���� ��
�
)�����2(�!�������!��*���
�
�����'����
�������������� �������� ������ �������� ��������������������� ��� !""� ���#��#������"� ��"$"%"&$�'(��)' *+�,-*(+�����.' ��� ����
(����/ ("/"(0%+�%(!+/���
EXHIBIT A
3
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 704-1 Filed 02/07/13 Page 4 of 19 Page ID #:15274
�����������
�
������#� �������$%
����������������������3����� �4����"�
���# �$�*����
��������������'�&�+ ��,��� �'�"�����*�������'�"������ ��&�� �'�(����)��������'�- �$����#�����
"#�$���%�,E��7��!��*� ������3�!�E���;��>��
�
'���(��� �D���!%������/.�������������0�� ����!�2����0��(�/.��������!����0���������� �$"D!
��2(�!�������!��*��������
�
������# �$�*�������� ����5������������������� ��������
"���%��.�!��/������.��/��F���������6����
&�%�'����������(�0
'�%���������� G�$�*���+����!G������)������G������������$�����G�&����"�!!�����
"#�$���%�,���7��!��*� ������3�!�E���;��>��
�
�����
$��;!��������!������!�������/���2(���0�!��(�� ��!�������$"���(��������*����� ����!�7��!���(���������������������2��
����� ��!.����/�1.�2�����4%��*�.!�/�$���*�2.��/�!�������(���$"������������#�*���(��".���������������/
������1.�2����#5������*����(���$"� ���������*��������� /��(���������������!���0(��(�$"�������������*��
�.��(�������0(����$���!�������(���$"�������!����*��#����������/#�� �����(�����������!!.�!���(����!���%�%��
.�����7,�89�
>�� �����/.���9�����/�!�����/�0�!��(�� ��!��������(���$"�!�������(�������!��(������������������*������(�!���*�����
�����.����!���$";!����2����!�.�����7,�89������%�����.����/���!��������2��2�*����(����%������������/� .!!����� ��!�
�1�����!��(���/.�(�*�����������(�������������!����2�����2��(���B�(��2�� ������������ ���������!����
!.�!�C.������ ������!�0(���*����!�7��!���� �����$"��(���������������������2�������
+������*����(.2(�/.�%�*������!�7��!��/�!�����/�0��(��0�����.!�/�%�%!���1.�2����!� ���(��&��2��
&.%����������&.%���/���!�!��/.������.��������� ���(��� ��(��!%��� ���%.�%�����2�.��!� ��$";!�!.����/
1.�2������������!��!���C.������!��(����!�7��!�;!��.�!�������%�%���/�%��%���� ���������.�������!��.���*�
����������� �����!������%�������/��(��,.��!
�(��:���(�"���.���������/��������������(������/� �1.�2��������$";!� �*�G�����B%��!!�/��������������#������H��I��(�
��!������1.�2��������!�����$";!��(�������� .��(��.���������!������2(�� �.��(����2#��$";!������!�������� ������!;
�� ��!�!��(�������.!���(��� ����������2������� �����/�1.�2������.��������������������(���!���;!� �*��
�������*���������(�!� ����!��/�����������������(�!��(.�!��/����������%���������������� ��
'���(
�
�������������� �������� ������ �������� ��������������������� ��� !""� ���#��#������"� ��"$"%"&$�'(��)' *+�,-*(+�����.' ��� ����
+����/ ("/"(0%+�%(!+/���
EXHIBIT A
4
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 704-1 Filed 02/07/13 Page 5 of 19 Page ID #:15275
?����������6������������6F�����'����������(�0���������������0����
".�!���
�
��(�*�����(���������� ���/.����������������������� ������/�������0�� (�������/.��*�������J��)!�%���
�.������������� �������(.2(������C.������0������%�*����2�/.�0��(���� �!� ��(��%�%!���1.�2����!��(���$"�0���
!��������(���������&.%�����������������&.%���/���!�!
�
)�����2(�!���!��*���
�
�����'����
�
�
������"������ ��&�� �
������� �������������������� �3��!�"�
�������������'�(����)��������
����#� �������$%'�&�+ ��,��� �'�# �$�*����'�"�����*�������'�- �$����#�����
� ������-0��.������+��������/�����0���1��2���
�
�����
�
����!�2�����������.��!������������.����������(������/�/.�����!�����2��
��2������� ��0��������*��2� ��!.����/�1.�2���������(��&��2���&.%���������&.%���/���!�!�����������/�� �����(�����������!!.�!����(��2�.�����!
��!�.!!���0��(�$��������/.���������������!���(����(��:���(�"���.�������!�������(�&��2�����!����!%!�!� ��(���������/� ���(���!�!�� ��0.������������������
�� ���0��(�/.�������/����.�!��/��!�%���!���������.!���0�0(���/.�����*�����������(!����/!�����(���!
�
)�����2(�!�������!��*���
�
$��
�
�
�������������� �������� ������ �������� ��������������������� ��� !""� ���#��#������"� ��"$"%"&$�'(��)' *+�,-*(+�����.' ��� ����
,����/ ("/"(0%+�%(!+/���
EXHIBIT A
5
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 704-1 Filed 02/07/13 Page 6 of 19 Page ID #:15276
�
�������������������� ������������������������ ��������
������$��������6������� ������ �!� ��"�
���(����)��������'�"������ ��&�� �
����#� �������$%'�&�+ ��,��� �'�# �$�*����'�"�����*�������
� ������-��.������+��������/�����0���1��2���
�
$���
�
7����,.���89����C.���!��(���/.���!�.!!�#�(��!.�!������ ��(�������%����������#��-.���9������!�.��������!��
��(��(�����.��� ��(�������4�������!����������� ��!.����/�1.�2����J5���(���������������!���0(��(�����%%���!����
$";!�2�.��!� ���(��������3���.!������!�.�������0(���������� ������!���������� ������� ������!������
������2 .��/��*��.��������!�.!!��(����%!������?����$"������ ��!���!�������0��0���� ��.�!����������(���(�%%/��
%�*����.��%!����
�
�.��(�������>������.����!�����0(/�/.������9������2����'���������!�3������������$�.����2�����2��(��������
��!����!�����(����(�/������/�������(���� ������%��!������/� ��(��%�����!�����(�������������2����
����!������.����0��9����������!!
�
>���� �0������(�����2� ���/.
,�2���!
����
�
?������<����=����������������)���&����"�!!��������!���������0����
����!��!����(�����������0�!��������(�� � �$������������
�
K�������������K�������������K�������������K�������������K
�
���������$����
�
)!�>�(�*�������������/.��0(����(�����������!!.�!�����(�����������!���0���������������������/��*���(��".����
������1.�2�������� �*�� �.��������!������(��(��&.%����������&.%���/���!�!���!������(��:���(�"���.��;!�������
����!�����2�����2��(��������2�����������0�����(��%�����!��>��.����!�.!!��!��/.�(�*������������/.���/�(�*�
�1�����!�������/� �1.�2���������*�������/���������!!��2���/�!.�(��!!.�!��%���!������.!���0�� �/.���������
�1����������/� �1.�2����������� �!��%���!��!%��� �����/������� /�/.���1�����!�� ��0�����(��������2����������
%��%��/������������ �����.���(���� ��0.����%%��������/.����!%�!�����������(����(.�!��/�����/��(���!�
�
)��� �$";!���2(�!�������!��*��
�������������� �������� ������ �������� ��������������������� ��� !""� ���#��#������"� ��"$"%"&$�'(��)' *+�,-*(+�����.' ��� ����
1����/ ("/"(0%+�%(!+/���
EXHIBIT A
6
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 704-1 Filed 02/07/13 Page 7 of 19 Page ID #:15277
�
$��
�
�
��������������
���������������������
����������������� ������ ������������������������������������
���������������� ��������!��"�#��$����������� ������
������������������� ������������ ���� ��������� �������� ������������������������������������ ��
������������� ��������������������� ����������� � ���� ������������ !���������� �����!�����!���� ���� �!
������� ���������� ���� �������������������� ���� �����������������!��������� ���� ���������������� ������
�������"�������� ������� �� �����������
�
99
���������
�
���� �L�)!!�����!���"
����8����� ���"�!��+�2(0�/��M�6=
�����.��"��� ��������F�
4�5�����6�����
4 5�����6�����
���� ����!!�����!��
NNNNNNNNNN
�
���� �L�)!!�����!���"�(�!��(��2�����!�0��!���������9����������!!�!�����!��.%�����/.�������!��������2�/
NNNNNNNNNN
�
�(�!���!!�2��������/������(�����.����!���/���������� ������� ������� �L�)!!�����!���"��(����!
�� ������������O��%��*���2���> �/.���������(���������������%������/.���/�����������%/����!����.�������(��0�!�
.!���(�!��� �������> �/.�(�*�������*����(�!�����!��!!������������%���!����� /��(��!����������������/��/���%�/
�9�����������(�����������(�!���!!�2���
99
'���(�P�)���!
�
�������������� �������� ������ �������� ��������������������� ��� !""� ���#��#������"� ��"$"%"&$�'(��)' *+�,-*(+�����.' ��� ����
2����/ ("/"(0%+�%(!+/���
EXHIBIT A
7
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 704-1 Filed 02/07/13 Page 8 of 19 Page ID #:15278
���� �L�)!!�����!���"
����8����� ���"�!��+�2(0�/��M�6=
�����.��"��� ��������F�
4�5�����6�����
4 5�����6�����
���� ����!!�����!��
NNNNNNNNNN
�
���� �L�)!!�����!���"�(�!��(��2�����!�0��!���������9����������!!�!�����!��.%�����/.�������!��������2�/
NNNNNNNNNN
�
�(�!���!!�2��������/������(�����.����!���/���������� ������� ������� �L�)!!�����!���"��(����!
�� ������������O��%��*���2���> �/.���������(���������������%������/.���/�����������%/����!����.�������(��0�!�
.!���(�!��� �������> �/.�(�*�������*����(�!�����!��!!������������%���!����� /��(��!����������������/��/���%�/
�9�����������(�����������(�!���!!�2���
99
���������
�
���� �L�)!!�����!���"
����8����� ���"�!��+�2(0�/��M�6=
�����.��"��� ��������F�
4�5�����6�����
4 5�����6�����
���� ����!!�����!��
NNNNNNNNNN
�
���� �L�)!!�����!���"�(�!��(��2�����!�0��!���������9����������!!�!�����!��.%�����/.�������!��������2�/
NNNNNNNNNN
�
�(�!���!!�2��������/������(�����.����!���/���������� ������� ������� �L�)!!�����!���"��(����!
�� ������������O��%��*���2���> �/.���������(���������������%������/.���/�����������%/����!����.�������(��0�!�
.!���(�!��� �������> �/.�(�*�������*����(�!�����!��!!������������%���!����� /��(��!����������������/��/���%�/
�9�����������(�����������(�!���!!�2���
�������������� �������� ������ �������� ��������������������� ��� !""� ���#��#������"� ��"$"%"&$�'(��)' *+�,-*(+�����.' ��� ����
/����/ ("/"(0%+�%(!+/���
EXHIBIT A
8
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 704-1 Filed 02/07/13 Page 9 of 19 Page ID #:15279
����������� �������������������������
���������
�� ������������������������� � ���� ��������������������
����������� ���������� �������� �������� �!�� �����" !�#�$��� ������� ���� �������� �!�� ��������%�
$�� �������&��� ��������� �������� �!�� �����'�(!��)���! ���#���! ���� �������� �!�� �����*!#���
" ���%%���� ���%%�����!�������+�,���-�!%%��%��!%%�����!�������.!#�%� �'�,������,������!�����
/��0� ��� %%!��'��! %0���& ��� %%!���������0"%!� ������# 10����%!� ���������02 ����/� �����0
� ���������
/�,� %�
�
$���# ��&% � ��!���&%�!��!��3 �&���!�������# ���!��� �!&,%��!���� 4���!�4�'/�/��! 3����!���5�6�����+ �( ����/���,�
�,��# ��' &� !�!���7��' � ����� �������� ������+�,���2! 4 %�+�� ����������������� ��� ��89�����5�6����/��& %
' � ����� �������� ������������������ ��� ��8����* &�������' &� !�!���:, �!�� ����� ,&&���!�4���,� �� �
�
', �����# ��!% � !; �����# � ,&&���!�4� <#!�!� ��1 �1!%%� ��� &���� � ��!% �1!�#��# � <#!�!� �����# ��
�
= �8���,%8�8�,� �
�������������
� ����������������������������������
����������������� ������ ��������
���������������������������
�������������������� !�"����
#�$��������� !�"����
%&�����'�(�)&&*�&
������������������� ������������ ���� ��������� �������� �����������
������������������������ �� �������������� ��������������������� ���������
� � ���� ������������ !���������� �����!�����!���� ���� �!�������� ���
������ ���� �������������������� ���� �����������������!��������� ���� ��
������������� ��������������"�������� ������� �� �����������
�+��������������� ��������� ��������������������� ���� � ��������
�
����������
���� ����!�"����� ��
��"
#$%$&'���(��)���������*������ ��
��"
#$%$&'��+�������+�� ��
�>"
,-���.������������+��/����"�����*�++� ���0��11&���*����*�&1&���1�1�12��3 .�(3����!4� ��.���530�.����***
��� 1�1 ����� ��4�+/
EXHIBIT B
9
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 704-1 Filed 02/07/13 Page 10 of 19 Page ID #:15280
������,�� ������(��*����������-�����������.����� �� ��
�?"
,-���.������������+��/����"�����*�++� ���0��11&���*����*�&1&���1�1�12��3 .�(3����!4� ��.���530�.����***
�� 1�1 ����� ��4�+/
EXHIBIT B
10
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 704-1 Filed 02/07/13 Page 11 of 19 Page ID #:15281
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’S NTC OF MOT. & MOT. FOR LEAVE
TO CONDUCT DEPO & COMPEL RESP.
DANIEL M. PETROCELLI (S.B. #097802) [email protected] MATTHEW T. KLINE (S.B. #211640) [email protected] CASSANDRA L. SETO (S.B. #246608) [email protected] O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, 7th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-6035 Telephone: (310) 553-6700 Facsimile: (310) 246-6779
Attorneys for Plaintiff DC Comics
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)
DISCOVERY MATTER
DC COMICS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION (1) FOR LEAVE TO CONDUCT FURTHER DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANTS MARC TOBEROFF, LAURA SIEGEL LARSON, AND MARK WARREN PEARY; AND (2) TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS MARC TOBEROFF AND MARK WARREN PEARY TO RESPOND TO DEPOSITION QUESTIONS
Judge: Hon. Otis D. Wright II Magistrate: Hon. Ralph Zarefsky
Hearing Date: March 11, 2013 Hearing Time: 10:00 a.m. Courtroom: 540
EXHIBIT B
11
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 704-1 Filed 02/07/13 Page 12 of 19 Page ID #:15282
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’S NTC OF MOT. & MOT. FOR LEAVE
TO CONDUCT DEPO & COMPEL RESP.
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on March 11, 2013, at 10:00 a.m., or as soon
thereafter as the matter may be heard by the above-entitled court, located at 255
East Temple Street, Los Angeles, California in Courtroom 540, plaintiff DC
Comics will and hereby does move the Court for leave to depose: (1) Defendant
Marc Toberoff for one full day not to exceed seven hours; (2) Defendant Laura
Siegel Larson for one full day not to exceed seven hours; and (3) Defendant Mark
Warren Peary for up to four hours. In addition, DC will and hereby does move the
Court for an order compelling (1) Toberoff to respond to deposition questions
regarding his discovery conduct on behalf of himself, his entertainment companies,
and the Siegel and Shuster heirs; and (2) Peary to respond to deposition questions
regarding the Pacific Pictures joint venture and related agreements, and Peary’s role
as executor of the Shuster Estate.
This motion is made pursuant to Rules 26, 30, and 37 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and Rule 37-2 of the Local Rules of this Court, as well as its prior
rulings in these matters cited in DC’s accompanying moving papers. Good cause
exists to permit DC extra deposition time with these witnesses (given, e.g., the
complexity of this case, and new documents that have emerged). Defendants’
objections misread privilege and relevancy rules, and should be overruled.
Pursuant to Local Rule 37-1, DC attempted unsuccessfully to resolve these disputes
and, now, respectfully seek the assistance of the Court.
This motion is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion; DC’s portion of
the accompanying Joint Stipulation Regarding DC Comics’ Motion (1) For Leave
To Conduct Further Deposition Of Defendants Marc Toberoff, Laura Siegel
Larson, and Mark Warren Peary; and (2) To Compel Defendants Marc Toberoff
and Mark Warren Peary To Respond To Deposition Questions; the accompanying
Declaration of Matthew T. Kline and exhibits in support thereof; any supplemental
memoranda that may be filed pursuant to Local Rule 37; all exhibits, files, and
EXHIBIT B
12
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 704-1 Filed 02/07/13 Page 13 of 19 Page ID #:15283
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 - DC’S NTC OF MOT. & MOT. FOR LEAVE
TO CONDUCT DEPO & COMPEL RESP.
records on file in this action; matters of which judicial notice may be taken; and
such additional submissions and argument as may be presented at or before the
hearing on this motion.
Dated: February 6, 2013 Respectfully Submitted,
O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
By: /s/ Daniel M. Petrocelli Daniel M. Petrocelli Attorneys for Plaintiff DC Comics
EXHIBIT B
13
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 704-1 Filed 02/07/13 Page 14 of 19 Page ID #:15284
�
���������������� ��������
�������������������� ��
��
�
����� ����������� �����������������������������������������
������������������ ��!�"�#$�
%%&&'����������� ����(�"�)&*+��
����,-���������./%01��
�
�
��������2&3/4�%*05&&&&�
�
��������2&3/4�%*05&3/3�
�$�����6��7�#�88� �����9������9���
�
������������ ��
�
�����������
�
��������������
���������������������� �
!!!�"������#$�����%����������##��
�#��"�&�����'"�!��(�
�
)�*��� �������������������� ������������������������'����+#,� ��'���-.����/0�1)234�
�������������������������������'����+#,� ��'���-(��/0�1)234�
�
/��������*�
�
5�������#�������$�#$�6������$$�������%��&�������#���#�$#��#���6�#��#���7��������8#�$���#$�
�������������������(��� ����&�����&���$������98#�����8���7����/'�'#7�8���1:/';4�����
��$�������0������<�#�,����������7����5�8,���18#���8�������:0�����;4�7#��#���$#����77����
=��&7�������������#�����$����8���8������#��������>��������������(���7���������0���������
�����������76�#6���$����&�#$���#���77����=��&7����7#��#���=����#�������������#������������
�� �,���
�
"���������#��#���8����6������$$����#�&�������&����������0�������������6������#��#$�����+�����
'��8������?������� ���� ����8���#�,��@������8���#���������#��������������8�#���� !���� ��������
8#��������������88�6���8��$�#7���,�����#��#$����#����#$$������0�����������������$$�8������#�
8��������8#����8�,��5��������#����&���#�������8#������������������#$�����8#����8���������������#$�
0���������#�����'#�����8���7�$#����8�����#��������$������������#��#��6������$$���8#����8��
��$������������7����������8����$#����=���8���#���������������8��8#����#$�0��������8#����8��
8���7��A�����@����������#�����'#�����8���7�,���
�
B�����������&�������#$�0��������8#����6#����8��#���������=�8�������#���8#�8���#����������#��
�����0��������������������#�=��&7�����������#�����#������+�����'��8������#������#���8#76������
�����5��������:��,�����#�������������&�C����8#����8�����������8�����#��������$���&�7����������
��$������#��36������������#�����&�7��������;�����#���������D��,���@���6�����������&������#�������
7�����&������$$�8��#$�����+�����'��8��������8���#���������$#������#��,�
�
������������� ������� ������������������ ��� ����������������������������������
������������������������
�
EXHIBIT C
14
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 704-1 Filed 02/07/13 Page 15 of 19 Page ID #:15285
� !"# $$�%�&'' ()&�"'��*�(��
�
������������ ��
)�*� �������'����+#, ��'���-.��E��������'����+#, ��'���-(�
�&�*� ��#$���
�
��������#8���)���������>�����������7#��#������$���������1 �4�������$��������6�������7��������
8#�$������8��#88���������������,��"����8������$���������$#��0�������#�$��������7#��#��������������
!��� ����������$���������������������&�������#����������8���F��� �,���
�
5���#������������(���7�����#����6��������������,� ���#8�����������������:7�������8#�$�����;�
��&�����&�/'�����#�7#��#���$#����77����=��&7�����������,�@#���#$$�������,��������,��@�������
�#������,��5����,�@#���#$$�����#������&��������������8#��������#���������,� ���#8�������&�����&�
������7����7���������,� ���#8���������������0�������#����$������:7#��#��$#��������#$�=��&7���;�
�#����7#��#��$#����77����=��&7���,����,� ���#8����������������������������?��������-��� ���
��7�����#���,�@#���#$$������0�������#����:7#�������'#�����#�������=��&7���,;��
�
��,�������������#�������������#�����#$���8#�������������#$������������8����,���������7#���������#���
������������&�������������,�����������D�����,� ���#8����������������7�������8����#����������
��$������������������#�$��������77����=��&7����7#��#����,� ���#8������������������:7�&��;�����
�������������#������������������6��#$�7#��#��0�������#����$���,��0������8���#���##�����6���,�
���#8�������8��������$����8������������7����8#��������#����������,�@#���#$$�������,����������#�
������0��������7��������8#�$���#���&���#��������������#8���)����,���
�
@���$�������7��0������8#�$��7���������������������#�$������7#��#��$#����77����=��&7��������#��
��������� ��� ��A�����������������������#���#������#�����������8���71�4�#�����8��0������
����������#�7#��,��@���$�������7��0������8#�$��7���������������������#�7#���$#����77����
=��&7����#�������#�����'���7������#����7����0����������7�����&�8���7�����7##������#��
���������.��� �,��������$�0��������&��������������������:7�������8#�$�����;�#�����������.�
��������#$����������(��� �������#���7��������8#�$��������8�������������8������������0������
�������#�����#���������������#�$����������77����=��&7����7#��#��6��#���#���������� .��� �,��/'���
$����&�#$���#���6��������77����=��&7����7#��#����#�����������$��&�������#����#��#$������#8���
)����,�
�
������ ���&��6��(1�4�#$�?��&��0��&������������&�#�����������������:����8#�����36�8������������
6�����7#���&�$#����77����=��&7������ �����������������������������������������������
����������������;�1�76�����������4,��B����������76#����8��#$���6#�������������6#��������
��77����=��&7����7#��#��?��&��0��&������������&�#�����6�#����������'#���������7#�����7���#�
���������������$������6�#����������#66#���&�6������������7#�������#�������7#����#$���7�������
=����#������D��#�$��������#66#����#�,��"88#����&������$����&�6��#��7#��#���$#����77����=��&7����
�����������������8�����#����������������������������&�������#�����#�&��������#�������������������
�����������#�$����������#66#����#������$,��<�8�����/'�$���������7#��#��$#��������&�#�����8�� �
�� ��6������$$�����#������&���1-4�������#�#66#���0����������77����=��&7����7#��#�,��
�
�������7#���/'����#������������$��������.�6�&�����8#�����7#��#�������������������������
������&����!*���67,��@����7#��#���������#66#����#�����������#$���������� ���� �,��"�����#������
����#����������������#6����&�����$�������������������66��������������8��F��� ������8#������
7�����6����8#�������������7��6��6����&����������$,��
�
EXHIBIT C
15
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 704-1 Filed 02/07/13 Page 16 of 19 Page ID #:15286
� !"# $$�%�&'' ()&�"'��*�(��
�
������������ ��
)�*� �������'����+#, ��'���-.��E��������'����+#, ��'���-(�
�&�*� ��#$���
�
0���������������#���#�=�7�6������$$�������%��&�������#��#��������7���#����6#����#�0����������#�
��77����=��&7����7#��#���������$������������������������76�#6��,�
�
�������6���������#������8�������&�#������&#������&��#�����������8��#���1'����+#�,��.�'���-.���
�.�'���-(4���������������#�$����7#��#�������������8�����������������������������������,��@���
����������#�$����������#����7#��#���$#����77����=��&7�������������$#����#�&�6��������������
6�#6���8#������#��������������$#������6��������#���&&�����������8��������������������������F�
�� �����������6#������8��?��&��0��&�������������������������� ��� ��#����������#���8�������
:����$�8����7���&�7����6�#6#����&#��&�$#�����,;�
��������������������������������6������������������7#��#�������$#��������&���$#���?��&��0��&���
#�����8�� ��� �������������������8����A���$���������7#��#��$#����77����=��&7����
��$���������7#��#��$#���������/'���7#��#��$#�����#�������$����/'���7#��#��$#�����8��#���6����
/'������8#�����7#��#�����8���������$#��������&�#��������7���������8�� ��� ����$#���
��&��������?��&��2���$�D�,�
�
5����&���#$�������#���6������$$������7#������ ������������#8���)����� !��#����8�������0��������
7#��#��$#����77����=��&7�����#�������������8���F��� ������6������$$���#66#����#������������#�
������������8�� ��� �������#�0������������$���$��������#�8#76���������#����#8���)�����������
?��&��0��&������������&�#����,�� �����������������$�/'�#66#���������7#��#�,�
�
��������#������������(���7����8#77����:G�H����������#��66���������8#�����#$��#���#����#������
����/�����8��'#�������#8���)���������7����������+�����'��8������#����#����8����������$����&�����
��77����=��&7����7#��#���#��������������D���� �8�$�8� �8�����;������7���������������8��#��$�#7�
/'����8�������#����#���#$�����)����,��5��+#��7������ ������6�������7�������8#�$����������������
�������8������&�����&���$���������7#��#��$#����77����=��&7������������8���,����8��#$�����
���$���&�#$������7#��#�������#����������������7,��@����������#���#����#��#$������#8���)�����#��
7��������&�#$�����+�����'��8���,���
�
I#���$�����6�#��������&�����&������#8���)���������6����8������������&���#���&����������/'����
$�������������������8��#���7#��#���������������#�����������.��� �������������#���#$�����+�����
'��8������7�����������&��������������#������8���#��8�,��@�������6��������$�8���������D���6����#$�
��$���������#66#����#��A����������'#������8D���=������8��#��6�����&�����66����A������#��7##��
������$��������#���#������#�������������������6�8�����#�����#���������=�8��$#��#������#6�8������
/'�$���������7#��#��6���������#�6�#6���6�#8������,�
�
������$$����������������&����������&�7����,��
�
������������#����
�������B,�"��7��
EXHIBIT C
16
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 704-1 Filed 02/07/13 Page 17 of 19 Page ID #:15287
����������� �������������������������
��������������������������������������������������������������
����� �!����"�������������� ��������������������������
�� �����!"��#����"��#����$%%��"�##�����#�����&���$�������'�����&��"(��$�������������&)����*�##��"$�&
��#��������
*�����$�� ��$%%������$%%����$%%��"�##�����#�����'�+�"�,�$$�#��"��$$�#����$%%��"�##�����#���������
!$$�"�"��(�$$�"�"����$%%��"�##�����#�����&$���"�������%�$���&��$���"�������%�$�����
&��$�������%�$���&����$�������%�$������-�����#�'������"�������%�$����
�����
�
.�$������$�%��"�/�����$���0�'*1#�#����$/�2�"0��������������������������#�#��#����3���4��������$��$�����
�����#���"�����$�����!��0����$��+��#�"�%���#����5�$#�1#�(#������$��
�
���5�$#�1#����#���(��/�"���"���/�0������'*1#��������$�0�������������%�6����$/����"�5�$#�������
��+�$�0�������0��������������#�+�$��43�����7���#���%$����((#�������'*1#�����4(�0��#����$/�2�"0����
������'�����"�'���1#�"�#��##��#�"��+�"�������0��������##��#�$�0�$"��0�'*1#���������"�'����#��$�"����#�
"�#��##��#�3���� ��$%%
�
�������/���#�#�����3��������*�$�1#�$���#��'*1#������"�#�($+�"��5�$#�������$��������84"�/#1�������$�9��$�"��/
6�"0��:$�0��1#�#���"��0�$"�$;����($+�"�#����"�/#��5�$#����#��$���������3������((#��'*1#�+�$/�#�$������;
������$�#���"�%��"���#�#�$+�"��3��������/�3�$���0�������0��/�#����$/�2�"0������������������������ �����#�3���
44����+��0�'*���/����"�/#���$�#(�"��'�%��"���#�������##�$�#�#������#�((#�"�/�������#��"�����$����%���#�
�0�$�#�$������*���%$����)�($����*�$������$��/������"�$����/������#��$0�����#���"�����$�������"��#�/����3��'*
��#���$�#(�"������/����$�($�##��0����0����#�"�$��0����#���4"�/�(�$�"�44������"��0���#�((#�������"�%��"���#1
�����%$�$�+��3����#�$�(�/��$��%����#�(($��%���#�%��#���������#����������(���"�(#�������#����/�<3������#�(�$��/
�����"�%���#�#����$/�2�"0�����((#����=����"���#�"�#�+�$/�$�#(�#�#�"����"�/�
�
���.�$��##�$�������������"��"�����%$�%����0�#����$/�2�"0���������#����������������#�#���#�>��0�(�##�"?��#���
3���4�������!#�/���$��3�����3�$�������(�$���#�"�#��##�"�%����0��$##4����#�%$�#����$/�2�"0������������)�(�$�/
��#����#��-+����$��.��#����"������5�$#��3��"�#��#����(�$�����#����$/�2�"0������������������)�(�$�/���#�
<#���/�$�-+����$����������������$���"������=�44���"�3�����4��"4��%�$$�"�����$������(����"�������.����+�$
��"�������$0�����������5�$#�1#�������$�'*1#������(����"��$##4������3��"�����������/���$�+�$�����
-�����*�$�����>"�$���@�"A�����"�#�$����2�"0����$���#�"�$�'*1#����$"���"�%�$��������$�����#������0���%�@��#A���"��0�����
����B����$����������������$��$����"�����0$������?��)��(�B(����C��'*1#������($+�"�#���+�������%$�����*�$����"
2�#������
�
D�� ���*�$����#�#�������$��/������$����#�"�������"�#���"����� ��$���#�����#�#�3���#�+�$�%$�5�$#�1#���
�� ���((���������3�����3��"��������($��"�$���/���($(�$���"���3�#���%�����*�$�1#���"�(�$���#1�������'*�3���
((#����/�#�������� ����((��������
�
���E��((#��0�������((���������3��3�����(($�#������*�$��%��3�/�$�%�$����#��"�����-�����*�$������������#�����
���������#�����#���0�%$�����7���#��������������� ��((����� �����((���������3���������-�����*�$�������#��%����"
�������������� �������� ������ �������� ���������������� ���������� ����� � ���!��!������ � �� " # $"�%&��'% ()�*+(&)�����,%���� ����
#����& & - &.#)�/�#.���
EXHIBIT D
17
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 704-1 Filed 02/07/13 Page 18 of 19 Page ID #:15288
3�#�����#�#�����3����/�$�($�$�%����0#����+�$�"�#��#�"�����#����$/�2�"0����������/��3�$��3$���0������������
����� ����!0�����#�����������%����"$��#�%�$���$�0$��"#���"�#$�0�$"�����#�((#�"���(�����#�$��#�"����/�$������$
�
����#�������"���������#���������������"/���/����� ���%����0�/������
�
'*�$�#�$+�#�����$�0��#�������"��0���#������#�%��#���"��#�#����((#��0���/�#�������� ����((�������
�
����� ����
�
�
������������������ �����������������������������
�������������������������� �!"�"� #�$%
���$������ ���&��� '�� �����%����('�)�����*�����
����%�����������'�&+���,����'�$� �����������
� ������-�����+��.�����/�����0�����������1���'�-�����+������.�����1���
@F���"���7����""��A
��$%%�G�!##�����#���*
����������%���*�#��,�0�3�/��H�D8
��������*���%$��������C
<�=�����DC����
<%=�����DC����
���$%%��"�##�����#��
IIIIIIIIII
�
��$%%�G�!##�����#���*���#�����0�"���#�3��#������"��4������""$�##�#�����#���("����/�$�$��$"#����$"��0�/
IIIIIIIIII
�
��#���##�0����"���/��������"�"������#���/����������%$������%$�� ��$%%�G�!##�����#���*�������#
��%�"���������"J$�($�+���0�"�E%�/���$��������������"�"�$���(������/����/����$��"���(/��"�#�$�������$����$3�#�
�#�����#���%$������E%�/����+��$����+�"����#��$��#��##�������$$$��(���#�����%/�����#��"�$�����"�����/��/�$�(�/
�4��������"������"���������#���##�0���
����������������������#������!$%#����&�'�(�')*+������,��
�DC
�������������� �������� ������ �������� ���������������� ���������� ����� � ���!��!������ � �� " # $"�%&��'% ()�*+(&)�����,%���� ����
&����& & - &.#)�/�#.���
EXHIBIT D
18
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 704-1 Filed 02/07/13 Page 19 of 19 Page ID #:15289
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE APPLICATION
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
30
31
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - WESTERN DIVISION
LAURA SIEGEL LARSON,
individually and as personal
representative of the ESTATE OF
JOANNE SIEGEL,
Plaintiff,
v.
WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT
INC., DC COMICS, and DOES 1-10,
Defendants and
Counterclaimants.
Case No: 04-CV-08400 ODW (RZx) Case No: 04-CV-08776 ODW (RZx) Hon. Otis D. Wright II, U.S.D.J. Hon. Ralph Zarefsky, U.S.M.J.
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE OPPOSITION AND HEARING DATES RE: MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Case No. 04-CV-08400, Dkt. 702; Case No. 04-CV-08776, Dkt. 222)
LAURA SIEGEL LARSON,
individually and as personal
representative of the ESTATE OF
JOANNE SIEGEL,
Plaintiff,
v.
TIME WARNER INC., WARNER
COMMUNICATIONS INC.,
WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT
INC., WARNER BROS. TELEVISION
PRODUCTION INC., DC COMICS,
and DOES 1-10,
Defendants and
Counterclaimants.
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 704-2 Filed 02/07/13 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:15290
1
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE APPLICATION
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
30
31
Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Ex Parte
application is GRANTED. The hearing date on the motions for summary judgment
(Case No. 04-CV-08400, Dkt. 702; Case No. 04-CV-08776, Dkt. 222) filed by
defendants and counterclaimants, DC Comics and Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.,
is rescheduled to March 25, 2013. Plaintiff’s oppositions are due on March 4, 2013.
Defendants’ replies are due on March 11, 2013.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: _____________
Hon. Otis D. Wright II.
Case 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ Document 704-2 Filed 02/07/13 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:15291