Case 2:11-cv-05353-GAF -JEM Document 80

Filed 08/18/11 Page 1 of 9 Page ID #:1006

LINK: 61, 66 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. Title CV 11-5353 GAF (JEMx) Nicholas Jarecki v. Michael Ohoven et al Date August 18, 2011

Present: The Honorable Renee Fisher Deputy Clerk

GARY ALLEN FEESS None Court Reporter / Recorder N/A Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: None Proceedings: (In Chambers)

Attorneys Present for Defendants: None

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Plaintiff Nicholas Jarecki (“Plaintiff” or “Jarecki”) filed this suit for a declaratory judgment against Michael Ohoven and Infinity Media, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) in the Southern District of New York on March 22, 2011. (Docket No. 1). On June 16, 2011, that court concluded that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Defendants and accordingly transferred venue to this Court. (Docket No. 40.) On July 25, 2011, a little over a month after the case was transferred and approximately two weeks after Defendants filed their Answer, Plaintiff filed the present motion for summary judgment. (Docket No. 61.) On July 28, 2011, Defendants filed an ex parte application to continue the hearing on the motion to allow Defendants to conduct discovery. (Docket No. 66.) Plaintiff alleges that he solely authored a screenplay (“the Screenplay”) for a film (“the Film”) that was set to begin principal photography in April 2011. (Docket No. 1, Compl. ¶¶ 8–9.) Accordingly, Plaintiff contends, he owns all rights, title, and interest in and to the Screenplay and any derivative works, including the Film. (Id. ¶ 9.) The complaint alleges that Plaintiff had communicated with Ohoven, the President of Infinity Media, Inc. (“Infinity”), and Infinity’s independent consultant, Kevin Turen (“Turen”), regarding the financing, development, and production of the Film. (Id. ¶ 10.) According to the complaint, Ohoven and Turen “provided some assistance with the development of the Film, and the parties discussed Defendants’ potential role as a financier and producer of the Film.” (Id.) However, the parties never reached an agreement as to the financing or production of the Film, nor did they ever enter into any written agreements transferring any copyright rights in the Screenplay or the Film. (Id.) In late 2010, Plaintiff told Defendants that he would be financing and producing the Film
CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 1 of 9

) II. ¶ 13.) Turen attests that he provided only general comments and feedback.) In November 2009. ¶ 18. ¶ 12.) In February 2010. (Id.) Nonetheless. ¶ 2.) Jarecki is also the director.GENERAL Page 2 of 9 . ¶ 3 & Ex. and primary financier of the Film.”) ¶ 3. A.) Then. (Id. (Id. Jarecki sent the Screenplay to Ohoven. Jarecki showed the Screenplay to Kevin Turen.) During this period—February through December 2010. (Jarecki Decl. it was never Jarecki’s or Turen’s intent that Turen would be deemed a co-author of the Screenplay. to see if he was interested in working on the project.”) ¶ 3. producer. (Id. 2011.) Jarecki has a registered copyright in the Screenplay. (Declaration of Kevin Turen (“Turen Decl. the Screenplay is not a joint work and Plaintiff is the sole author of the work.”) ¶ 1. ¶ 6.” (Id. (Id. ¶ 11. (Id.) Plaintiff understands Defendants to contend that Turen’s contributions rendered the Screenplay a “joint work” under copyright law and that Turen’s contributions were made on a work-for-hire basis for Infinity. counsel for Defendants sent Plaintiff’s counsel a letter contending that Defendants have the exclusive right to produce and distribute the Film and that they are the co-author and co-owner of the Screenplay by virtue of contributions that Turen purportedly made to the Screenplay on Infinity’s behalf. FACTS Nicholas Jarecki wrote a screenplay called Arbitrage that is currently being made into a motion picture starring Richard Gere.’” (Declaration of Michael Ohoven (“Ohoven Decl. he did not provide lines of dialogue or descriptions of action. 2011 without their involvement. and Tim Roth. in consultation with Turen. that [Turen] wrote out specific dialogues and scenes with him and that there was no way Nick could ever ‘kick us off the Picture. President of Infinity.” (Id.Case 2:11-cv-05353-GAF -JEM Document 80 Filed 08/18/11 Page 2 of 9 Page ID #:1007 LINK: 61. ¶ 13. ¶ 25.) Despite Turen’s contributions.) In this suit. ¶ 13. when Turen provided services to Infinity in connection with the potential production of the Film—Turen was an independent CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES . Turen continued to review drafts of the Screenplay and to provide “general comments. (Id. Turen Decl.) Jarecki initially sought Turen’s general impressions “in his independent capacity. (Id. Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment (1) that Defendants hold no copyright interests in the Screenplay or in the Film. Michael Ohoven et al Date August 18. (Declaration of Nicholas Jarecki (“Jarecki Decl. (Id. on March 3. (Id. Declaration of Travis Mann (“Mann Decl. as between Plaintiff and Defendants.) After Infinity expressed interest. Ohoven and Jarecki negotiated the possibility of producing the Film together. 66 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES .”) ¶ 18. such that Turen’s co-authorship rights inure to the benefit of Infinity. and (2) that. Title CV 11-5353 GAF (JEMx) Nicholas Jarecki v.) Jarecki wrote and revised the Screenplay from early 2009 through May 2011. Ohoven and Infinity’s in-house attorney attest that Turen repeatedly told them that he “practically ‘co-wrote’ the Screenplay with Nick [Jarecki] in Infinity’s offices. Susan Sarandon. a friend who was consulting for Infinity at the time.GENERAL Case No.) From February through December 2010.

” (Id. nor did he ever sign any agreement that transferred to Infinity any rights in any work product that Turen created. Defendants described the Film as “written and to be directed by Nicholas Jarecki. Infinity would “pursue all available legal and equitable claims against Jarecki” and related entities.. D. sent a letter to Jarecki’s attorney accusing Jarecki and Turen of orchestrating a “bad faith conspiracy to replace Infinity as [the Film’s] producer and financier. not an employee. Travis Mann. including. Infinity has an ownership interest in the results and proceeds of such services and the underlying property rights in and to the Picture.) In Fall 2010.. B at 2. and Arbitrage PSC. and in December. G. (Jarecki Decl. (Id. 2011 contractor. 18. without limitation. Ex.) On November 1. Ex. ¶ 6. (Jarecki Decl. E. Title CV 11-5353 GAF (JEMx) Nicholas Jarecki v. ¶ 7. (Jarecki Decl.GENERAL Page 3 of 9 .) The letter asserted that “to the extent that Jarecki.) The letter indicated that if Jarecki did not confirm within five business days that he would honor his obligations to Infinity. Ex. 66 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES . 2011.” (Id. ¶ 13. (Id.GENERAL Case No.) The letter demanded that Jarecki immediately cease and desist from developing and producing the Film and indicated that failing to do so would “force Infinity to seek immediate. 2011. emergency injunctive and equitable relief in connection with this matter. E. 2010. Ohoven approved a press release that described the Film as “written and to be directed by Nicholas Jarecki.” and requires Jarecki to negotiate any Writer’s rights agreement in good faith.”). similarly describes the Screenplay as “written and owned by” Jarecki..) To the contrary. Inc. ¶ 14... (Id. Infinity had never indicated that it believed it had co-authorship rights in the Screenplay. Jarecki concluded that he could not work with Ohoven and broke off negotiations.. (Turen Decl. ultimately engaged him as Producer of the Film.” describes the Screenplay as having been “written by Writer [Jarecki]. ¶ 11. (Id. Infinity had acted as if only Platinfiff authored and owned the Screenplay.) Similarly. as of June 13.) Turen never signed any agreement with Infinity regarding his services.) Before this letter. at 3. A draft letter agreement prepared by Defendants and dated April 22. an ownership interest in the screenplay.) Jarecki never signed any written agreement granting Infinity any rights in the Screenplay.Case 2:11-cv-05353-GAF -JEM Document 80 Filed 08/18/11 Page 3 of 9 Page ID #:1008 LINK: 61.” (Jarecki Decl. (Id. Ohoven began demanding that Jarecki sign rights in the Screenplay over to Infinity.) All copies of the Screenplay listed only Jarecki as the author.) CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES .” (Id. 2010. in-house counsel for Infinity. Ex. of Infinity. Ex.) After Jarecki broke off negotiations with Infinity.. F. Turen Decl. ¶ 14. (Id. Turen and/or other third parties rendered services in connection with the Picture as a work made for hire for Infinity and/or were compensated by Infinity for their services in connection with the Picture. ¶¶ 7–11.) On March 3.) In multiple offer letters to actors. 2010. C. refers to Plaintiff—and only Plaintiff—as the “Writer.) A draft option agreement dated November 3. Turen remained involved.” (Id. Ex. Infinity’s website described the Film as “written and directed by Nick Jarecki.” (Reply Declaration of Nicholas Jarecki (“Jarecki Reply Decl. Michael Ohoven et al Date August 18. Ex.

at 256–57. CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES . Thus. Rather.S. See Fed. the Court must decide whether there exists “any genuine factual issues that properly can be resolved only by a finder of fact because they may reasonably be resolved in favor of either party.GENERAL Page 4 of 9 Date August 18.S. 66 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES . 56) (alteration in original)). Am. 250 (1986). 477 U. 477 U. an adequate opportunity to respond. LEGAL STANDARD FOR A CONTINUANCE UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 56(D) Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d). See id. 645 (9th Cir. Indus. at 587. the Court must believe the nonmoving party’s evidence.” Matsushita Elec.” Fed.S. Co. Civ. the nonmoving party must show that evidence in the record could lead a rational trier of fact to find for it. 56(c). Health Plan. when addressing a motion for summary judgment.S. 574. In reviewing the record. Civ.” Fed.” (quoting Fed.. This evidence must be admissible. 477 U. Union Ins.Case 2:11-cv-05353-GAF -JEM Document 80 Filed 08/18/11 Page 4 of 9 Page ID #:1009 LINK: 61. P. v. B. P. at 256. [or] (2) allow time to obtain affidavits or declarations or to take discovery. at 255. 325 (1986). v. v. Title CV 11-5353 GAF (JEMx) Nicholas Jarecki v. 242. Liberty Lobby. 2011 . . P. the nonmoving party must put forth “affirmative evidence” that shows “that there is a genuine issue for trial. 477 U. 1278 (9th Cir. 1990). Inc. Co. see also Portland Retail Druggists Ass’n v. Ltd. DISCUSSION A.. 317.GENERAL Case No. Implicit in the ‘opportunity to respond’ is the requirement that sufficient time be afforded for discovery necessary to develop ‘facts essential to justify (a party’s) opposition’ to the motion. R.” Anderson v. 586 (1986). LEGAL STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Summary judgment is proper where “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. P. 662 F. In considering a Rule 56(d) request. that there is an absence of evidence” supporting a fact for which the nonmoving party bears the burden of proof. Id. Bank. R. Catrett. 56(a). Celotex Corp. “[i]f a nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that. The nonmoving party cannot prevail by “simply show[ing] that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts. “[t]he district court has discretion to continue a motion for summary judgment if the opposing party needs to discover essential facts. 1981) (“Before summary judgment may be entered against a party. Anderson. that party must be afforded . (e). . the court may: (1) defer considering the motion or deny it. Civ. R. Michael Ohoven et al III. Kaiser Found. 475 U. 914 F. and must draw all justifiable inferences in its favor. . Diversified Sav. The moving party can meet this burden by presenting evidence establishing the absence of a genuine issue or by “pointing out to the district court . for specified reasons.” Cal. ..2d 641.2d 1271. it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition. Civ. The moving party has the burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of fact for trial. R.” Anderson. Zenith Radio Corp. To defeat summary judgment.S. 56(d).

1994). ¶ 11. Ex. City & Cnty. in their Answer.Case 2:11-cv-05353-GAF -JEM Document 80 Filed 08/18/11 Page 5 of 9 Page ID #:1010 LINK: 61. Plaintiff has attested that he never signed any agreement granting Defendants any rights in the Screenplay. 2d 1115. 2009) (citing 17 U. 17 U. A “joint work” is defined as “a work prepared by two or more authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES . 22 F. co-authors of a joint work co-own the copyright in the work.. the party seeking a continuance must show it was diligent in pursuing discovery. (Jarecki Decl.3d 1198. 1076 (9th Cir. Inc. APPLICATION “A copyright registration certificate is prima facie evidence of copyright ownership. Ty Inc. Opp.’” Id.” Resolution Trust Corp. Under the Copyright Act. he did not contractually transfer any ownership rights in the Screenplay. because Plaintiff never signed any written agreement.D. and explain why those facts would preclude summary judgment.C.C.” 17 U. In addition. A copyright in the Screenplay has been registered in Plaintiff’s name.3d 1090. v. so long as it rises sufficiently above mere speculation. 1100 (9th Cir. 2004). (Jarecki Decl.) Plaintiff has accordingly made a prima facie case that he owns the copyright in the Screenplay.” Tatum v.” Aurora World. 719 F. Dkyy Spirits. shifts to the defendant the burden to prove the invalidity of the plaintiff’s copyrights. 55. Supp.) Thus. Indeed. A Rule 56(d) declaration “need not be presented in a form suitable for admission as evidence at trial. § 410(c).) Under the Copyright Act. See Jones v. Defendants do not suggest that discovery would reveal the existence of any such written agreement. v. (See generally Docket No.3d 1068. of S. 71. 225 F. In their Rule 56(d) request. Inc.. therefore. Title CV 11-5353 GAF (JEMx) Nicholas Jarecki v. Inc. 393 F. 930 (9th Cir... 2006). licensing or otherwise transferring to Defendants any copyright rights in the Screenplay and/or the Film.GENERAL Page 5 of 9 . 441 F.) It is accordingly undisputed that Plaintiff did not transfer rights in the Screenplay to Defendants. § 201(a). In their opposition to the motion for summary judgment—which is nothing more than a request for a continuance under Rule 56(d)—Defendants make no argument that this provision does not apply here such that an oral transfer could be enforceable.C.S. Blanas.. 1128 (C. § 204(a). (quoting Ets-Hokin v. 1206 (1st Cir.3d 918. Answer ¶ 10. Bridge Assocs. 2011 The party seeking a continuance under Rule 56(d) must “identify by affidavit the specific facts that further discovery would reveal.S. N.GENERAL Case No. Defendants admit that “the parties have not entered into any written agreements assigning. “‘A certificate of copyright registration. Michael Ohoven et al Date August 18. Defendants contend that they nonetheless have rights in the Screenplay because Infinity qualifies as a co-author under copyright law.. a transfer of copyright ownership is not valid unless it “is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner’s duly authorized agent.” (Docket No. C. 2000)). 66 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES . A.F. Cal.S.

Ex. (Answer ¶ 12.. Ohoven approved a press release that described the Film as “written and to be directed by Nicholas Jarecki. if Turen provided only ideas. 823 (9th Cir. that neither Plaintiff nor Defendants or Turen manifested any intent to be co-authors. 916 F. 2010. Ex. E. Ex.. D. Before this dispute arose. Turen Decl. 531 F.” (Jarecki Reply Decl. F. C. Ross. First. (See Jarecki Decl. D. D.. as of June 13. 968 (9th Cir. and not any expressions of ideas. (2) that “the ‘putative coauthors made objective manifestations of a shared intent to be coauthors’”. 521 (9th Cir.) On November 1. v. 2010. Ex.) Finally. not the ideas themselves. E. Exs. (Id. ¶ 3.” (Turen Decl. Plaintiff has offered a declaration by Turen—the purported co-author—that he provided only “general comments and feedback.) Although Defendants now contend that Turen told them that he authored portions of the screenplay. Second. Defendants described the Film as “written and to be directed by Nicholas Jarecki. Michael Ohoven et al Date August 18.GENERAL Page 6 of 9 . Defendants prepared numerous documents reflecting an understanding that Plaintiff alone was the Screenplay’s author..) In multiple offer letters to actors. Title CV 11-5353 GAF (JEMx) Nicholas Jarecki v..) All copies of the Screenplay listed only Jarecki as the author.) Plaintiff has refuted this contention with evidence that Turen did not make any “independently copyrightable” contributions to the Screenplay. 1990) and Aalmuhammed v.” Id. (Jarecki Decl.) A draft option agreement dated November 3. he did not make “independently copyrightable” contributions that could entitle him to co-author status. Plaintiff and Turen have both attested that they did not intend to be co-authors of the Screenplay. (Jarecki Decl. 66 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES .2d 516. To establish that a work qualifies as a “joint work. Ex. 2000)) (alteration omitted). Inc. 297 F.’” Richlin v. ¶ 18. Jarecki Reply Decl.” Cavalier v.” and did not provide any “lines of dialogue or descriptions of action. similarly describes the Screenplay as “written and owned by” Jarecki. Lee. 2008) (quoting Ashton-Tate Corp. Random House. Thus. 2011 inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole. 2002). 1234 (9th Cir.” and requires Jarecki to negotiate any Writer’s rights agreement in good faith. MetroGoldwyn-Mayer Pictures.. F. 2010. Inc. Defendants own documents belie this claim. refers to Plaintiff—and only Plaintiff—as the “Writer.3d 815. § 101. CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES . Infinity’s website described the Film as “written and directed by Nick Jarecki.) Copyright law protects only “expression of ideas. Exs. G.. (3) that “the alleged author superintended the work by exercising control”.) This evidence shows that Defendants objectively manifested an understanding that Jarecki was the sole author of the Screenplay. G. Defendants contend that Turen co-authored the Screenplay while he was working on Infinity’s behalf.” a party must show (1) that each author made “‘an independently copyrightable contribution’”. 2011.” describes the Screenplay as having been “written by Writer [Jarecki].GENERAL Case No...Case 2:11-cv-05353-GAF -JEM Document 80 Filed 08/18/11 Page 6 of 9 Page ID #:1011 LINK: 61. Ex. and (4) that “‘the audience appeal of the work’ can be attributed to both authors” and that “‘the share of each in its success cannot be appraised.” (Id. ¶ 18.. 202 F.3d 962. (Id. E.) A draft letter agreement prepared by Defendants and dated April 22. and that Turen did not exercise control over the work.3d 1227. E.” (Id. C.

Plaintiff attested that “[t]he creative . ¶ 3. ¶ 3. and that there was “no way” Jarecki could “kick [them] off the Picture. Defendants now request a Rule 56(d) continuance to allow them to obtain evidence so that “it can properly oppose the Motion for Summary Judgment. On the other hand.) Defendants suggest that they could obtain this testimony notwithstanding Turen’s declaration attesting otherwise because Turen previously told Ohoven and Infinity’s counsel that he “practically ‘co-wrote’” the Screenplay. have not attempted to explain why this evidence would preclude summary judgment. . however. . Indeed. indeed they cannot as they authored the most persuasive evidence of Jarecki’s role as the sole creator of the screenplay. ¶ 4.) But what might such evidence be and where might it be found? On those questions. it would not. Defendants have provided very little detail as to what they could accomplish if given the opportunity to conduct discovery. perhaps. Ex Parte Application at 3. This failure flies in the face of Ninth Circuit precedent which mandates that a party seeking a continuance under Rule 56(d) must “identify by affidavit the specific facts that further discovery would reveal. For example. . decisions for this project . have ultimately been my sole responsibility” and that he has “retained creative control of the project throughout development.” (Turen Decl. that Turen wrote out specific dialogue and scenes. 66.) Defendants have not presented any facts to dispute any of this evidence. at 2. such testimony that he wrote portions of the Screenplay would establish only that he contributed “independently copyrightable” elements.) Defendants.” Tatum. at 2. 66 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES .GENERAL Page 7 of 9 .Case 2:11-cv-05353-GAF -JEM Document 80 Filed 08/18/11 Page 7 of 9 Page ID #:1012 LINK: 61. Defendants have not suggested that discovery would uncover any evidence raising a triable issue of fact on either CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES . 441 F.) Turen confirms that Jarecki “retained sole control over the Screenplay and its content. to enhance his standing with Ohoven and others. (Opp. nor would it establish that Turen exercised any control over the work. Michael Ohoven et al Date August 18. It would not establish that he and Jarecki objectively manifested any intent to be coauthors. financing and production.” (Docket No. Plaintiff has offered evidence that he exercised sole control over the development of the Screenplay. .” (Jarecki Decl. and explain why those facts would preclude summary judgment. Turen might agree that he made such statements but acknowledge that they were exaggerations meant. if Turen in fact contradicted his declaration. Defendants have identified only one specific fact in support of their application: they contend that allowing time for discovery would permit them to obtain deposition testimony from Turen that he co-wrote the Screenplay with Jarecki. ¶ 17.” (Opp. Despite this evidence. Specifically. Title CV 11-5353 GAF (JEMx) Nicholas Jarecki v. Mann Decl.GENERAL Case No. agreed that he made such statements and insisted that they were true.3d at 1100 (emphasis added). Ohoven Decl. 2011 Finally.

661. no evidence in the record indicates that that co-author status would be imputed to Infinity. 441 F. IV. Turen attests that he was never an employee of Infinity and that he rendered his services to Infinity as an independent contractor.) Defendants do not explain what testimony they expect to obtain from Plaintiff or from the unidentified “witnesses. (Turen Decl. Moreover. Defendants also seek additional time to depose Plaintiff. in the Film—and that the Screenplay is not a joint work by Plaintiff and Defendants. even if Turen did co-author the Screenplay. 2011 of these elements.” and to obtain a copy of the shooting script. ¶¶ 7–8. Michael Ohoven et al Date August 18. 66 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES .) Turen further attests that he never signed any agreement with Infinity regarding his services or any agreement transferring rights to Infinity in any of his work product. Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendants’ affirmative defenses is DENIED as moot. Plaintiff has accordingly met his burden to show that the undisputed facts establish that Defendants hold no copyright interests in the Screenplay—or. In sum. derivatively. and explain[s] why those facts would preclude summary judgment”). They have not put forth any evidence raising a triable issue of fact on the elements of joint authorship.Case 2:11-cv-05353-GAF -JEM Document 80 Filed 08/18/11 Page 8 of 9 Page ID #:1013 LINK: 61.” nor do they explain how a copy of the shooting script would help them to defeat summary judgment.) In light of this.1 They therefore have not shown that additional discovery would allow them to present evidence precluding summary judgment. even if Defendants could raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Turen was a co-author of the Screenplay. They accordingly are not entitled to a continuance under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d). Declaration of Michael Ohoven in Support of Ex Parte Application ¶ 6. CONCLUSION Defendants’ ex parte application for a continuance of the motion for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) is DENIED and Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.GENERAL Case No. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is therefore GRANTED and Defendants’ ex parte application for a Rule 56(d) continuance is DENIED. to obtain “affidavits and/or declarations from [unspecified] witnesses. they have not indicated that they could obtain any evidence showing that Turen co-authored the script on a work-for-hire basis on behalf of Infinity. As a result. Defendants have not shown that allowing time for discovery would enable them to uncover evidence that could defeat summary judgment. they have not demonstrated their entitlement to a continuance under Rule 56(d).3d at 1100 (allowing a Rule 56(d) continuance only where the non-moving party “identif[ies] by affidavit the specific facts that further discovery would reveal. The Court concludes that Defendants hold no copyright interests in the Screenplay or in the Film and that the Screenplay is not a joint work by Plaintiff and Defendants. Title CV 11-5353 GAF (JEMx) Nicholas Jarecki v. See Tatum. ¶ 13.GENERAL Page 8 of 9 1 . CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES . (Id. (Docket No.

Title CV 11-5353 GAF (JEMx) Nicholas Jarecki v. is hereby VACATED. CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES . 2011.GENERAL Page 9 of 9 . Michael Ohoven et al Date August 18. 66 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES . 2011 Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to submit a proposed judgment consistent with this Order by no later than August 30.Case 2:11-cv-05353-GAF -JEM Document 80 Filed 08/18/11 Page 9 of 9 Page ID #:1014 LINK: 61.GENERAL Case No. The hearing on this motion currently scheduled for August 22. 2011. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful