CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar

[Professor Zoom]

Is there anything that could prevent Axanar from going ahead with shooting/profiteering in the meantime?

Yeah: one of their defenses. They have said they shouldn't be sued because we haven't made the movie, so how could we have violated copyright?

This, of course, ignores Prelude and the Vulcan scene.

But, as I recall, there's no injunction in place to prevent them from shooting the movie.

And I think that same lack of injunction surrounds the donor store.

 

[dmac]

Man, I'm going to have to rearrange my schedule to allow for more lurking than I thought.

 

[Jody Wheeler]

Perhaps the Klingon was from the Qo'noS Department of Redundancy Department.

I think he's probably just going to kill his agent for making him say such cliches.

 

[Noname Given]

If this was to be the case, and the main case got to trial in January coming and was lost by the defendants, when could it possibly be heard in the Ninth Circuit?

Once the side who wants to appeal a decision files the paperwork and pays the fees, etc; it'll depend on when there is an open spot to hear the appeal on the calendar of the Appeals court it's assigned to.
^^^
This is the part they never show/discuss on the TV shows that deal with legal proceedings. It's the main reasons a case like this can take YEARS to resolve as the full appeals process (all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court - assuming they agree to hear the case; and if not the ruling of the next highest appeal court that heard the case stands and is considered final) can be a lengthy affair until all avenues of appeal are exhausted. <--- This is also why many cases settle at some point in this process too, UNLESS one side or the other is confident they'll win every appeal.

 

[oswriter]

This is the part they never show/discuss on the TV shows that deal with legal proceedings. It's the main reasons a case like this can take YEARS to resolve as the full appeals process (all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court - assuming they agree to hear the case; and if not the ruling of the next highest appeal court that heard the case stands and is considered final) can be a lengthy affair until all avenues of appeal are exhausted. <--- This is also why many cases settle at some point in this process too, UNLESS one side or the other is confident they'll win every appeal.

Right. And what I described above was a simplified view of the process. After a Ninth Circuit panel hears and decides the appeal, the losing side can then move for a "rehearing en banc," which is a request to hear the appeal a second time before a larger panel of the court. Most of these petitions are rejected.

After the rehearing en banc, if any, the loser can then file a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. Again, most of these petitions are rejected. The Supreme Court takes less than 100 cases per year out of tens of thousands of petitions filed. But the process of waiting for the inevitable rejection can still eat up several months. So if AP has the stamina--and if he still has counsel--he really could drag this on for several years.

 

[trynda1701]

So if AP has the stamina--and if he still has counsel--he really could drag this on for several years.

I think that if that (hopefully unlikely) event came to pass, even this thread would give up on following events!

Either that or the forums would run out of memory on the servers!

 

[carlosp]

FRIDAY is the day of deposition for Prelude director Christian Gossett. What clues does his subpoena give about CBS/Paramount's strategy? And what's up with Axanar attorney Erin Ranahan's looming conflict of interest? Read more »

 

[ThankYouGeneR]

^^^ That is a very interesting read.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

After the rehearing en banc, if any, the loser can then file a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. Again, most of these petitions are rejected. The Supreme Court takes less than 100 cases per year out of tens of thousands of petitions filed. But the process of waiting for the inevitable rejection can still eat up several months. So if AP has the stamina--and if he still has counsel--he really could drag this on for several years.

Exactly. As an example, look at the whole "Deflategate" thing. The litigation began on July 28, 2015 and essentially ended on July 15, 2016 (though if a hail mary to SCOTUS were attempted it would have dragged things out to at least October). And that was a case that didn't involve any discovery at all and where both courts involved -- SDNY and CA2 -- were going blazingly fast (especially SDNY, which disposed of the case in 6 weeks) by judicial standards.

 

[Professor Zoom]

Is there anything preventing Christian revealing publicly what was asked? What his answers were?

Or is he legally bound to say nothing?

 

[mos6507]

...there's no injunction in place to prevent them from shooting the movie.

That's a glaring oversight on CBS/P's part, especially given how long Alec has been trying to maintain the illusion that things are business-as-usual.

Between now and 2+ years from now imagine all the shenanigans that are likely to take place.

 

[muCephi]

FRIDAY is the day of deposition for Prelude director Christian Gossett. What clues does his subpoena give about CBS/Paramount's strategy? And what's up with Axanar attorney Erin Ranahan's looming conflict of interest? Read more »

Will the subpoenas give an indication what C/P is aiming for? Looks like.

Between now and 2+ years from now imagine all the shenanigans that are likely to take place.

 

[ThankYouGeneR]

FRIDAY is the day of deposition for Prelude director Christian Gossett. .......]Read more »

[/URL]

Re: "Both subpoenas were for depositions to be led by the studios’ lawyers from Loeb & Loeb."

So are you saying here that each party's (Plaintiff/defendant) deposition is held separately? That it's not like a courtroom proceeding where one side questions Mr. Gossett, followed immediately by the other side questioning him? That L&L is the only one asking questions in this one? With any legal representatives of the person being questioned only there to advise the deposed? That when or if W&S wants to ask Mr. Gossett a question it will be an entirely different time and maybe place? If so, is the Plaintiff or defendant even required to attend these things in person if they aren't themselves being questioned on a particular day/time? (In the way way back I was deposed about something but I don't remember anything about it. I don't 'think' I remember the defendant or representatives being there and I wasn't the plaintiff. But again, it was in the way way back and my memory of it is faulty at best.)

 

[carlosp]

Re: "Both subpoenas were for depositions to be led by the studios’ lawyers from Loeb & Loeb."

So are you saying here that each party's (Plaintiff/defendant) deposition is held separately? That it's not like a courtroom proceeding where one side questions Mr. Gossett, followed immediately by the other side questioning him? That L&L is the only one asking questions in this one? With any legal representatives of the person being questioned only there to advise the deposed? That when or if W&S wants to ask Mr. Gossett a question it will be an entirely different time and maybe place? If so, is the Plaintiff or defendant even required to attend these things in person if they aren't themselves being questioned on a particular day/time? (In the way way back I was deposed about something but I don't remember anything about it. I don't 'think' I remember the defendant or representatives being there and I wasn't the plaintiff. But again, it was in the way way back and my memory of it is faulty at best.)

I believe it can all happen at once. The attorney who ordered the deposition, in this case Loeb, begins direct examination of the person being deposed (the deponent). After the direct examination, other attorneys in attendance, in this case Ranahan from Winston, have an opportunity to cross-examine. The first attorney may ask more questions at the end, in re-direct, which may be followed by re-cross.

I think each side, under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, can depose a maximum of 10 witnesses during discovery. If the defense plans on calling that many, it's in their interest to cross-examine at a deposition called by the plaintiffs rather than use up one of their 10 slots to depose the same witness a second time. That sound right, Madame Justice @jespah ?

 

[carlosp]

That's a glaring oversight on CBS/P's part, especially given how long Alec has been trying to maintain the illusion that things are business-as-usual.

Between now and 2+ years from now imagine all the shenanigans that are likely to take place.

I think that if CBS/Paramount prevailed in a motion for summary judgment before trial, and Axanar planned on appealing (and based on recent comments by Alec Peters, that may be what the defense is expecting) the plaintiffs could ask the judge for an injunction pending the appeal.

 

[Professor Zoom]

That's a glaring oversight on CBS/P's part, especially given how long Alec has been trying to maintain the illusion that things are business-as-usual.

Between now and 2+ years from now imagine all the shenanigans that are likely to take place.

I'm not so sure. 1. CBS lawyers don't strike me as people who overlook things. 2. The non existence of the movie is a core part of the defense. They said the suit is not ripe yet, because there's no movie, how can you sue?

If Peters went ahead and made the movie, there goes that defense and then how many copyright violations would CBS add to the suit?

The lack of an injunction might be a gambit: go ahead, make your movie, see what happens

Besides, I don't think Peters wants to make the movie now. This is the best thing to happen to him. Now he can be a martyr.

 

[mos6507]

I don't know about this. Not that long ago Alec was crowing about JJ saying that they could go ahead and "make their movie". I think the main reason Alec wouldn't make the movie is that he can't assemble enough money or attract crew and actors to do it, not a lack of will.

 

[Professor Zoom]

I don't know about this. Not that long ago Alec was crowing about JJ saying that they could go ahead and "make their movie". I think the main reason Alec wouldn't make the movie is that he can't assemble enough money or attract crew and actors to do it, not a lack of will.

Very cynically on my part: what is to be gained from making the movie at this point? He can't make any money off the film itself, once it's made there's no reason to raise money.

However, at this point, an unmade movie is more profitable and provides a david vs. Goliath story for Peters.

If the movie happens, that goes away. And what if the movie sucks?

Better to never make it. CBS is giving Peters a gift. If only they would settle on his terms. Lol.

 

[RedForman]

Besides, I don't think Peters wants to make the movie now. This is the best thing to happen to him. Now he can be a martyr.

I think that's honestly what he wants at this point. As far as squeezing Gossett though, given all the things Carlos listed out in his latest article, I think they'll get less out of him compared to either RMB or Terry. Who knows though...............

 

[mos6507]

He can do anything he wants to do if he wants to ignore there's a lawsuit in-progress. That's exactly how he behaved when the lawsuit started. Remember going out to sushi and continuing to build out the bridge set? Business as usual, right?

That Peters has employed the "well, there's no movie yet" argument in his defense doesn't mean he can't contradict himself later. He is using a Bart Simpson style kitchen-sink approach to his defense, after all. Don't expect consistent behavior from him.

Again, I don't think he'll make the movie, but not because he doesn't want to, simply because nobody would want to work on it considering all the negatives. For instance, is Tobias still part of Team Axanar at this point? Which, if any, of the key players would participate? Richard Hatch? Is that it?