• Embed Doc
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
KARIN G. PAGNANELLI (State Bar No. 174763)ROillT U. SHENDRIKAR (State Bar No. 200401)MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP LLP
11377West Olympic BoulevardLos Angeles,CA 90064-1683Telephone: 310) 312-2000Facsimile: 310) 312-310023
4
5Attorneys or Plaintiffs FONOVIS~ INC.;BMG MUSIC; AND WARNER BROS. RECORDSINC.
7
UNlTED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10WESTERNDMSION
CASE NO. CVO3-6371DT (FMOx)12FONOVISA, INC., a California corporation;BMG MUSIC, a New York generalpartnership;andWARNER BROS.RECORDS NC., a Delawarecorporation,
RESPONSES
OF PLAINnFFS
FONOVISA, INC., BMG MUSIC, ANDWARNER BROS. RECORDS INC. TOFIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIESPROPOUNDED BY DEFENDANT ROSSPLANK
13
Plaintiffs,
14
v.
15
ROSSPLANK,16Defendant.
17
181920DefendantROSSPLANKROPOUNDING PARTY:21Plaintiffs FONOVlSA, INC, BMG MUSIC, ANDESPONDING PARTY:22WARNER BROS. RECORDS NC.23SET NO.:
ONE
24
25Pursuant o FederalRules of Civil Procedure33, Plaintiffs Fonovisa, nc, BMG Music,26and WarnerBros. Records nc. hereby espond o the First Set of Interrogatories f Defendant27RossPlank ("Defendant") as ollows:
MitchellSilberberg &Knupp lLP
28
0634501.1
 
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND GENERAL OBJECTIONS2
3
These esponses re madesolely for the purposes f this action. Any infonnation
4
provided n responseo any particular nterrogatory s subject o all objectionsas o competence,relevance,materiality, propriety, admissibility, and all other objectionson any grounds hatwould pennit or require he exclusionof the information f such nformation were offered nevidence,all of which objectionsand groundsherebyare expressly eservedand may be interposedat time of trial or in responseo any motion or application hat may be madeby any
9
party.
10
1Plaintiffs object to the interrogatories s a whole to the extent hat they request
12
information that is protected rom disclosureby the attorney-clientprivilege and/or he attorneywork product doctrine.31415Plaintiffs object o the nterrogatories s a whole on the ground hat they arepremature, nthat discovery n this action s continuing,and additional nfonnation may be discovered n the6future that conceivablycould be responsiveo one or more of the nterrogatoriespropounded y
7
Defendant. Plaintiffs reserveall rights to rely at trial or for any purposes n connectionwith this819action upon, any nformation, whetheror not provided n responseo any particular20interrogatory.21No incidental or implied admissions re ntendedby the responses erein. The fact that223Plaintiffs have respondedo or provided nformation n responseo any particular nterrogatory
24
is not intended,and shall not be construedas, a waiver by Plaintiffs of any part of any objectionto any such nterrogatory,any other nterrogatory,or any part of any GeneralObjection. S26
27
MitchellSilberberg &.Knupp UP
28
1
0634~1
 
RESPONSESTO INTERROGATORIES
23
INTERROGATORY NO.1:illENTIFY every copyright at issue n this suit, including a completechronological5recordof the registration,ownership, icenseand/or assignment f that copyright. 6
7
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.1:Plaintiffs object o this interrogatoryon the grounds hat it is overbro~ compound,and
9
calls for infonnation that is not relevant o any claim or defense n the action, and t is
10
oppressive, urdensome nd harassing.Plaintiffs also object o the phrase completechronological ecord" as vagueand ambiguous. Without waiving any objections,Plaintiffs will112provide copiesof the Certificatesof Registration or eachsound ecording isted on Exhibit A to 13the Complaint.1415INTERROGATORY NO.2:16mENTIFY every communication,written or oral, that You have had with any hird party,
7
including but not limited to Comcast, egarding nfringing conductat issue n this suit, including18but not limited to the namesof the people nvolved in the communication, he dateand ime of19the communication,and subjectmatterof eachcommunication.
20
21RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.2:Plaintiffs object o this interrogatoryon the grounds hat it is compoundand calls for
2
information protectedby the attorneyclient privilege and/or he work product doctrine.
3
Plaintiffs also object to the phrase third-party" as vagueand ambiguous. Without waiving their
4
objections,pursuant o FederalRule 33(d), Plaintiffs wiII produceall correspondence ith S
26
Comcastspecifically relating to Defendant.
27
M tcbcll
Silberberg &.
KnuWLl.P
28
2
0634501.\
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...