Free Motion to Strike - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

R. Buck McKinney Texas Bar #: 00784572 LAW OFFICE OF BUCK MCKINNEY PO Box 6231 Austin, Texas 78762-6231 Telephone: (512) 236-0150 Facsimile: (512) 444-1879 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA PHOENIX DIVISION JOHAN DE MEIJ, d/b/a AMSTEL MUSIC, BV Case No.: No. CIV 04-0341 PHX RCB PLAINTIFF, vs. TEMPE UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, CORONA DEL SOL BAND BOOSTERS, GREAT VIDEO PRODUCTIONS, ARIZONA MUSIC EDUCATORS ASSOC., ARIZONA ACADEMY FOR THE PERFORMING ARTS, INC., MARK D. RICHARDSON, WILLIAM J. RICHARDSON AND CHRIS EVANS DEFENDANTS MOTION TO STRIKE SUMMARY JUDGMENT EVIDENCE

On July 21, 2005, Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the Defendants' affirmative defenses under 17 U.S.C. § 412. (Docket # 124). On August 18, 2005, the

Defendants filed responses and cross motions for summary judgment, attaching and/or referencing a sworn declaration by co-Defendant Mark Richardson as summary judgment

24 25 26 27 28

evidence. (Docket #'s 134, 137). On September 6, 2005, Plaintiff filed reply briefs, and attached thereto his Responses and Objections to the District's and AAPA's summary judgment evidence, which incorporated a Motion to Strike the declaration of Mark Richardson. (Docket #'s 143 & 144). On

Case 2:04-cv-00341-RCB

-1Document 164 Filed 10/02/2005

Page 1 of 5

1 2 3

September 8, 2005, Plaintiff filed a "notice of errata" alerting the Court that he had erroneously filed his Motion to Strike as an exhibit to his Reply briefs. (Docket # 145). On September 23, 2005, the District and AAPA filed Responses to Plaintiff's Motion to

4 5 6 7 8 9

Strike, docketing them as Responses to Plaintiff's Reply to the Defendants' respective Responses to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. (Docket #'s 160, 161). In an effort to clarify the record, Plaintiff hereby re-submits his motion to strike as a separate pleading, again with all due apologies to the Court and parties for any confusion caused by his initial error in attaching that motion as an exhibit to his reply brief.1

10 11 12 13 14

I.

ARGUMENT

Exhibit "1" to the AAPA's Statement of Facts ­ the sworn declaration of co-defendant Mark Richardson - contradicts Richardson's pleadings in this matter, and therefore may not be relied upon to defeat summary judgment. Knudsen v. United States, 254 F.3d 747, 752 (8th

15 16 17 18 19 20

Cir.2001) (holding that a party's later affidavit contradicting his pleading and deposition testimony cannot create a genuine issue of fact for purposes of summary judgment).2 On May 18, 2004, before Richardson was a defendant in this lawsuit, and while he and the District were still concealing the fact that there had been a "sale" of an unauthorized arrangement of Plaintiff's work, the District's attorney asserted in written correspondence that

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1

"there was no `arranger' and there was no `custom arrangement,'" and that "[i]nstead, District employee Mark Richardson modified the duly purchased score to facilitate its use by his

Plaintiff notes that the Defendants made nearly identical errors, failing to file their respective "Cross Motions for Summary Judgment" as separate pleadings. See also Soo Line R. Co. v. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co., 125 F.3d 481, 483 (7th Cir.1997). ("[A] party is bound by what it states in its pleading . . . [A]lthough the rule smacks of legalism, judicial efficiency demands that a party not be allowed to controvert what it has already unequivocally told a court by the most formal and considered means possible.")
2

Case 2:04-cv-00341-RCB

-2Document 164 Filed 10/02/2005

Page 2 of 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

students in accordance with the fair use guidelines."3 Later, when Richardson himself became a defendant in this litigation, he adopted this same story in his answer to Plaintiff's complaint, specifically denying that he created an "arrangement" of Plaintiff's work4 and alleging that his preparation of the sheet music utilized by the Corona band amounted only to "editing" of a "duly purchased score."5 Obviously, Mark Richardson can't have it both ways. Either he "edited" a "duly purchased copy of the score," or he created a "musical arrangement." But more importantly, the fact that Richardson's declaration controverts his prior pleadings in this matter renders the

10 11 12 13 14

declaration incompetent and improper for purposes of defeating Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. Knudsen, 254 F.3d at 752. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff requests that the Court strike Richardson's declaration in its entirety.

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
3

Dated this 2nd day of October, 2005.

s/ R. Buck McKinney________________ R. Buck McKinney, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF BUCK McKINNEY Texas Bar No. 00784572 P.O. Box 6231 Austin, Texas 78762-6231 Telephone (512) 236-0150 Facsimile (512) 444-1879 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

See Exhibit "B," Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. Richardson's Answer to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint at ¶¶ XI, XV. Id. at ¶¶ XI, XV, and p. 10 (affirmative defenses).

27
4

28
5

Case 2:04-cv-00341-RCB

-3Document 164 Filed 10/02/2005

Page 3 of 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on October 2, 2005, a copy of the attached document was electronically transmitted using the CM/ECF System for electronic filing and transmittal of a notice of electronic filing to the following CM/ECF registrants: Garrick L. Gallagher [email protected] Debora L. Verdier [email protected] Sanders and Parks, PC 3030 N. Third Street, Suite 1300 Phoenix, AZ 85012-3099 Francis G. Fanning [email protected] Law Offices of Francis G. Fanning 500 E. Southern Ave., Suite B Tempe, AZ 85282-5211 Martin P. Clare [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Campbell, Yost, Clare, & Norell, P.C. 101 North First Avenue, Suite 2500 Phoenix, AZ 85003 C. Mark Kittredge [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Scott S. Minder [email protected]; [email protected] Perkins Coie Brown & Bain, P.A. 2901 North Central Avenue Post Office Box 400 Phoenix, AZ 85001-0400 Thomas K. Irvine [email protected] Irvine Law Firm, PA 1419 N. Third St, Ste. 100 Phoenix, AZ 85004

Case 2:04-cv-00341-RCB

-4Document 164 Filed 10/02/2005

Page 4 of 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I certify that on October 2, 2005 a copy of the attached document was served on the following parties via U.S. mail: J. Gregory Osborne Tolman & Osborne, P.C. 1920 E. Southern Ave., Ste.104 Tempe, AZ 85282

s/ R. Buck McKinney________________
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Case 2:04-cv-00341-RCB

-5Document 164 Filed 10/02/2005

Page 5 of 5