Opinion
No. C 13-04679 PJH (LB)
08-07-2014
STEVE WILSON BRIGGS, Plaintiff, v. SONY PICTURES ENTM'T, INC., et al., Defendants.
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S JULY 10, 2014 MOTION TO COMPEL
[Re: ECF No. 53]
In this action, Plaintiff Steve Wilson Briggs has sued Defendants Neill Bomkamp, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc., Tristar Pictures, Inc., Media Rights Capital II LP, and QED International for copyright infringement. First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), ECF No. 17. In essence, Mr. Briggs claims that Defendants, through their production, distribution, and display of the film Elysium, infringed his copyright in a screenplay he wrote called Butterfly Driver. Mr. Briggs served requests for production of documents ("RFP") on Defendants, and now has filed a motion to compel Defendants to further respond to two of them: RFP Nos. 4 and 6. Motion, ECF No. 53. Defendants oppose the motion. Opposition, ECF No. 62. The court held a hearing on August 7, 2014, and rules as follows.
I. RFP NO. 4
As clarified by Mr. Briggs, RFP No. 4 seeks "[a]ll documents (emails, texts, memos, letters or any other communication) pertaining to Elysium between Defendant Neill Blomkamp and Elysium's film editors Julian Clarke and Lee Smith between June 2013 and August 9th, 2013." Errata, ECF No. 56; RFPs, ECF No. 62 at 13. During the parties' meet-and-confer session, Defendants' counsel informed Mr. Briggs that Mr. Blomkamp had no documents responsive to RFP No. 4 and that Defendants would serve a supplemental response to this effect. Korn Decl., ¶ 4, ECF No. 62 at 7. Per Mr. Briggs's suggestion, Defendants' counsel also spoke with Mr. Clarke, who confirmed over the phone and by email that the editing of Elysium concluded well before June 2013, and that there were therefore no communications between the editors and Mr. Blomkamp about the film from June 2013 to August 9, 2013. Id. ¶ 8, ECF No. 62 at 8. Defendants subsequently did serve a supplemental response to RFP No. 4 that states that they have no documents responsive to that request. Id., Ex. 4, ECF No. 62 at 23.
At the hearing, Mr. Brigg confirmed that he had received the supplemental response and that the issue is moot. Accordingly, the court denies as moot Mr. Briggs's motion to compel Defendants to further response to RFP No. 4.
II. RFP NO. 6
RFP No. 6 seeks "[a]ll contracts and agreements between any and all Defendants pertaining to their participation in ANY facet of the writing, production, making, distribution, marketing, etc., of the film 'Elysium.'" RFPs, ECF No. 62 at 13. Defendants object to this request as overbroad. Opposition, ECF No. 62 at 5. They point out that its broad language would encompass innumerable contracts, many of which do not relate in any way to Mr. Briggs's copyright infringement claims (e.g., contracts with actors, composers, crew, and others who were not involved with the writing of the film's script; location agreements; contracts with caterers and equipment rental companies; etc.). Id. at 5-6. Defendants also object to producing documents responsive to this request in light of Mr. Briggs's refusal to enter into a protective order that covers confidential information. Id. at 6.
Defendants do, however, propose a compromise: Given that Mr. Briggs wants to identify other potential defendants to his copyright infringement action, Defendants offer to provide a verified interrogatory response that identifies all of the entities responsible for the production and distribution of Elysium. Id. At the August 7, 2014 hearing, Mr. Briggs acknowledged that his goal was to obtain the names of potential infringers and that Defendants' compromise served that end. Accordingly, the court orders the verified interrogatory response that Defendants offered.
CONCLUSION
This disposes of ECF No. 53.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 7 2014
/s/_________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge