12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
REPLY ISO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
BAKER MARQUART LLPJaime Marquart (Bar No. 200344) jmarquart@bakermarquart.comRyan Baker (Bar No. 214036)rbaker@bakermarquart.comChristian Anstett (Bar No. 240179)canstett@bakermarquart.com10990 Wilshire Blvd., Fourth FloorLos Angeles, California 90024Telephone: (424) 652-7800Facsimile: (424) 652-7850Attorneys for All PlaintiffsUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIAWESTERN DIVISIONSUGAR HILL MUSIC, SOLIDPRODUCTIONS, STEVEN BATIZ,TONY BELL, DETRON BENDROSS,DERRICK BRAXTON, REGINALDBROOKS, ELIJAH BROWN,HORACE BROWN, OSCARBROWN, LUTHER CAMPBELL,JONATHAN CARLTON, SOLOMONCONNER, DAYQUAN DAVIS,DOUGLAS DAVIS, KAREEMDAVIS, SOLAMIN DAVIS,EMMANUEL RAMONE DEANDA,DREW CARTER, NACOLBIEEDWARDS, VANCITO EDWARDSJOHN FLETCHER, WILLIE FINCH,ISAAC FREEMAN, JR., DARRYLGIBSON, JALIL HUTCHINS,EMANON JOHNSON, KEITHCASE NO. CV 11-9437-DSF (JCx)
PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORTOF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARYINJUNCTION[Filed concurrently with:DECLARATION OF CHRISTIANANSTETT]
Hearing Date: February 25, 2013
Time: 1:30p.m.Judge: Hon. Dale S. FischerCourtroom 840Trial Date: TBD
Case 2:11-cv-09437-DSF-JC Document 51 Filed 02/11/13 Page 1 of 20 Page ID #:1288
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
REPLY ISO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
JONES, ORAN “JUICE” JONES,TARSHA JONES, NAILAHLAMEES, DANA MCCIEESE,BARRY MOODY, JEFF REDD,QUAME RILEY, ANTHONYROBINSON, NICHOLAS SANCHEZ,JONATHAN SHINHOSTER,DIAMOND SMITH, REMINISCESMITH, GERALD SPENCE, CHRISSTOKES, IRENE STOKES,JUANITA STOKES, WILLIAMTENNYSON AND THE TENNYSONESTATE, CARL THOMAS, JEFFTHOMKINS, RONDELL TURNER,RICKY WALTERS, KEVINWILLIAMS, YOLANDA WHITAKE,JOSEPH WILLIAMS, RAHEEMWILLIAMS, CASE WOODWARD,ATTRELL AND JARRETT CORDES,MITCHELL GRAHAMPlaintiffs,vs.CBS INTERACTIVE INC., CNETNETWORKS, INC.Defendants.
Case 2:11-cv-09437-DSF-JC Document 51 Filed 02/11/13 Page 2 of 20 Page ID #:1289
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
REPLY ISO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1
II.
PLAINTIFFS ARE HIGHLY LIKELY TO PROVE INDUCEMENT ........... 1
A.
Plaintiffs Own the Works At Issue ......................................................... 1
1.
Plaintiffs’ Evidence of Ownership ............................................... 2 a.
The Fresh Works ................................................................ 3 b.
The Hutchins Works ........................................................... 3 2.
CBSI Offers No Conflicting Evidence ......................................... 4 B.
Plaintiffs’ Works Have Been Directly Infringed .................................... 4
1.
Plaintiffs Offer Direct And Circumstantial InfringementEvidence ........................................................................................ 4
2.
Plaintiffs Are Not Required To “Trace” Infringement ................. 5
3.
Plaintiffs Are Highly Likely To Prove Intent To Induce ............. 8 a.
All Of Plaintiffs’ Inducement Evidence is Relevant .......... 8 b.
Plaintiffs’ Evidence Shows Intent to Induce ...................... 9 c.
CBSI Is Liable For Infringement ..................................... 10 C.
Plaintiffs Have Shown Irreparable Harm .............................................. 12
D.
Plaintiffs’ Motion Is Timely ................................................................. 12
E.
The Balance of Equities Favors Plaintiffs ............................................ 13
F.
The Proposed Injunction Serves The Public Interest ............................ 14
G.
The Proposed Injunction Is Neither Vague Nor Overbroad ................. 14
III.
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 15
Case 2:11-cv-09437-DSF-JC Document 51 Filed 02/11/13 Page 3 of 20 Page ID #:1290
