Discovery - the schedule has already been laid out by the court and the parties. Subpoena lists already exist (AP has said he is listed to be deposed although that's hardly a surprise as he is the sole named defendant).
Questioning is generally open except for relevancy objections. You can't pull a self-incrimination dodge in civil cases, but if anything is asked wherein the question could incriminate anyone in a potential future
criminal matter (that could include criminal fraud, sports fans), then a witness could try to plead the Fifth Amendment. If I am the party asking the question being objected to, I am probably taking it to the judge for a ruling. But a ruling over the phone (if that is what happens) might not result in much more than a one- or two-line ruling.
We might not see too much detail from our vantage point.
Case relevancy is technically anything within the pleadings or related thereto, so the Mary Sue bedtime story is actually in the mix (e. g. would AP's third grade transcripts apply? We all would rightfully find that to be stupid overreaching, but it's Winston and Strawn who opened up that door, and not Loeb and Loeb). However, AP's love life is not up for grabs except in the context of Ms. Kingsbury being a part of the production and fulfillment staff, and potentially Crysstal (I have forgotten her surname, sorry) knowing something or other although I think she doesn't know anything that can't better be testified to by someone else.
If I am plaintiffs, I want to know about the following topics:
- Intentional infringement - that would mean higher-ups in the production of both Prelude and the full-length feature. Hence we are talking RMB, possibly Mr. Gossett. It is highly likely that would not mean actors.
- Material gain and benefit - that would mean people involved with the money and its collection and the means for collecting it, which is Mr. McIntosh, Ms. Kingsbury, and possibly (albeit less likely) higher-up artists creating items which the production ended up selling, although I think that's a stretch. That's Mr. Tourangeau and Mr. Richter but again I think they are less likely to be subpoenaed. Does it mean anyone in what I have been calling the investment consortium? That might be considered to be a fishing expedition. We shall see.
- Continued infringement and benefit - that would mean a look into the financials. AP is the person to ask about this but it would be in conjunction with a forensic audit by a licensing CPA.
Hence they would be (I believe) subpoenaing AP (we already know this), RMB, Mr. McIntosh, and Ms. Kingsbury, and demanding a forensic audit. Others might or might not be subpoenaed as more information comes to light.
If I am defense, I want to know about the following topics:
- Permission, whether express or implied - that would mean anyone AP alleges he conversed with regarding guidelines or issues. That is Ms. Kalodner, Mr. Ross, Mr. Burke, and Mr. Van Citters. The former two are Paramount, I believe, with the latter two being with CBS.
- Any way I can show fair use or the implication thereof - I think it's more likely that would be a subpoena duces tecum, which is for documents, rather than a subpoena for anyone to appear, although usually someone has to interpret on the record what documents mean. If any of the four people I mentioned can do that, then there is no need for a fifth witness.
Hence there may be as many as four subpoenas to appear going out from this side, but if they can do it with just one representative from each plaintiff, they may prefer to do it that way unless new information comes to light. Plus an SDC to get any supporting documents if any exist.
We will see little of this unless either (a) AP or the like say something and/or (b ) it turns up in court documentation or motion practice.
]
