CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
Plaintiffs are supposed to name anyone who could be involved and make sure they get a chance to go to the in-person scheduling conference on May 9th. I've been taking that as being a push to name Doe defendants, but that is how I am reading the order.
PS The plaintiffs more or less say who the Does are in their complaint. Let's look at the most recent one, the Amended Complaint:
It says, "10. The Doe Defendants include, among others, those persons who aided in
the writing of the scripts for the Axanar Works or producing or directing the films,
and those persons who designed or caused to be designed the infringing sets,
costumes, props and other elements in the Axanar Works that infringe copyrighted
Star Trek elements."
Last edited:
Wait. So.... does 'Axanar Works' and 'the films' (plural) include Prelude? And by extension the persons 'who designed' 'other elements' include Mr. Kraft? Except no, it won't include him because Michael says Kraft is not a Doe.
Last edited:
Could the donors be does? After all, it was their money that caused sets to be made
THAT, would be sort of funny. CBS literally suing the fans.
But, no. I don't they are going to be Does.
That was my thoughts, but 10. does imply that the Does are those that caused the script, sets and other stuff to be created. As the donors gave money, it aided in the creation of Prelude, the Vulcan scene and another scene...
Actually, anybody got any idea WHAT this other scene was?
Does is as Does does.
These does are a deer... A female deer
Sorry - had a Sound of Music moment
Sorry - had a Sound of Music moment
We're talking about dose Does, not dese does.
Is there a rule that says "You have to name the Does by X point in the case?"
Also, is there room here to have Indiegogo or Kickstarter named, or (assuming the plantiffs are even interested) would that typically be a separate suit?
But then it says (in part) "11. The true names and capacities of the defendants named herein as Does 1 thru 20 are unknown to Plaintiffs... ...Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint to allege their true names and capacities when such have been ascertained."
So that should mean in discovery, yes? So will discovery start before the May 9th hearing, at least enough to name the Does?
EDIT: Inserted first quote.
Last edited:
If you think that's what I'm doing, then you should try paying attention a little more closely. Seriously.
I don't appreciate your little snide remarks my way. I am simply telling you that Tommy Kraft is not a Doe. That is based on a number of different streams of information, beginning with the fact that the definition of the Does are laid out, and Tommy doesn't even match it. That is one of several factors at play in what is my concluding statement that he is not a Doe.
The Doe list is not going to be very large, if CBS and Paramount even decide to move forward with such a list. If you read what Janet and others said on here in the past, and the attorney we consulted for our Feb. 1 story, the Does are there primarily to help get some key players to jump sides and make this case move even smoother for CBS and Paramount.
You don't have to be a reporter, or even a genius, to figure it out. Tommy played a very minor role in the overall Axanar machine. Not saying compositing is not important, but in the grand scheme of the strategy CBS and Paramount are deploying, he's not high enough in the Axanar hierarchy to be named, or even considered.
There was someone who actually played a much more prominent role, especially in the early creation of Axanar, who was (and still is, a little) worried that they will be named a Doe. I learned they were not. They decided to contact the studio law firm to still offer some of the limited information they had. This person went right up to the main attorneys, and had a great conversation with them. And felt very rest assured after that they were not going to be named a Doe.
Bonnie already stated that sometimes we gather information or hear things that we can't necessarily report. But that doesn't mean we can't sometimes share ancillary information we might have based on that. It's not to say, "Oh, look, here's something you don't know," it's to say, "Hey, here is what I know."
You can't even compare this to what Peters does, because I didn't come out and say, "Oh, I know the Does ... I will announce it someday, probably after CBS and Paramount announces it!" Someone speculated that Tommy was a Doe, and instead of me teasing "maybe he is, maybe he isn't," I came out and said, "no."
Did that connect the dots better for you? If not, I'd be happy to discuss it more, but first wipe that chip off your shoulder or whatever it is that's making you act so rude. Thanks.
Remember, the list is not going to be all-inclusive. There is a strategy involved with how Does are being used, and that's the primary purpose why this has moved forward as Does in the first place.
While yes, CBS and Paramount would like to reserve spots for potential more defendants based on information they glean, but they also want to use that as leverage to help get some key people to flip. People like a Robert Meyer Burnett. Maybe even the co-writer of the Axanar script, I can't remember his name. Maybe the original director, Christian Gossett. Maybe the lead set builder.
It's likely going to be people in decision-making capacities, and not the "work bees." Unless those work bees have valuable information of some sort that could help the plaintiffs.
The Doe definition is deliberately broad and vague, so that CBS and Paramount are less limited in scope on who they might leverage later or actually add later.
Thanks. It's not a chip on my shoulder. Its your general condescension in posts that rubs me the wrong way. And defensiveness.
Sucks to be you, then. So here's an idea ... stop reading what I write, and that should solve it all.
Sound like a deal? Good. Bye!
Because the perception could arise that all the money could be frittered away. When its coming in hand over fist one may not see a little carpet as such a big deal. The reaction could arise 'hey now this has gone far enough, give us back what's left'.
I did not know about Doe strategy in law suits. Now that you say it's an "ohhh, yeah. I get that" kind of moment.
Sort of like a criminal investigation where everyone knows about the crime but nobody's talking? Start threatening prosecution for collusion or obstruction and they often start talking? And/or flipping their testimony for immunity?
This also gives me clearer explanation about a film years past in which I knew some of the 'work bees' who worked it. A tragedy occurred during filming and the natural inquiry into possible prosecution began. The film's biggest wig (not the studio) offered quiet deals for long term employment in the big wig's future films to a couple of the highest up 'work bees' to encourage them to not flip with possible information of some sort.
Last edited:
No deal. I'll read and respond as I like. As long as it fits within the rules of the board, obviously.
- Status