Confidential – Filed Under Seal Pursuant to Protective Order

Geoffrey S. StewartMeir FederChris J. LopataJones Day222 E. 41st StreetNew York, NY 10017-6702Telephone: (212) 326-3939Email: gstewart@jonesday.comWilliam W. Fisher III (admitted

pro hac vice

)1575 Massachusetts AvenueCambridge, Massachusetts 02138Telephone: (617) 495-0957Email: tfisher@law.harvard.edu

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Counterclaim Defendants

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORKSHEPARD FAIREY and OBEY GIANT ART,INC.,Plaintiffs,v.THE ASSOCIATED PRESS,Defendant and CounterclaimPlaintiff,v.SHEPARD FAIREY, OBEY GIANT ART, INC.,OBEY GIANT LLC and STUDIO NUMBER ONEINC. and ONE 3 TWO, INC. (d/b/a OBEYCLOTHING),Counterclaim Defendants.Case No.: 09-01123 (AKH)

MEMORANDUM OF LAW INSUPPORT OF MOTION FORPROTECTIVE ORDER

Case 1:09-cv-01123-AKH Document 101 Filed 01/27/2010 Page 1 of 20

andMANNIE GARCIA,Defendant, CounterclaimPlaintiff and Cross-claimPlaintiff/Defendant,v.SHEPARD FAIREY and OBEY GIANT ART,INC.,Counterclaim Defendants.andTHE ASSOCIATED PRESS,Cross-claimPlaintiff/Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case 1:09-cv-01123-AKH Document 101 Filed 01/27/2010 Page 2 of 20

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

-i-INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................1FACTUAL BACKGROUND........................................................................................................3ARGUMENT.................................................................................................................................4I. A Postponement of Mr. Fairey’s Deposition Is Warranted to Protect His FifthAmendment Rights in the Face of the Criminal Investigation..........................................4A. Legal Standards......................................................................................................4B. Prejudice to Mr. Fairey..........................................................................................6C. Prejudice to Opposing Parties................................................................................7D. The Interests of the Public and the Court...............................................................9E. The Status of the Criminal Proceeding................................................................10II. In The Alternative, Mr. Fairey’s Deposition Should Be Limited In Scope By AProtective Order From This Court...................................................................................12CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................14