Free Reply to Response to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

I
2

some inconsistency that might raise a genuine issue of material fact. But here again, the AAPA's clumsy efforts only highlight the weakness of its argument. First of all, even if Plaintiffs pleadings did assert inconsistent facts, those pleadings

3 4

don't constitute competent summary judgment proof. See Wallace v. Texas Tech Univ., 80
6

F.3d 1042, 1047 (5~ Cir. 1996). Second, to the extent there may be inconsistencies between Plaintiffs pleadings and the

8

relief sought herein, they are the result of the Defendants' duplicity
9

--

not Plaintiffs. When

Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint, and indeed when he filed his motion for
10

~
12 13 14

summary judgment, he was under the impression that the AAPA was involved in the "preparation, copying and distribution" of the arrangement in the summer of 2002.~ Evidently, Plaintiff was in error since Mark Richardson now admits that he and his father were the sole participants in those acts. (Richardson's Deci. ~j~j 7-8). The AAPA's false note of outrage is part-and-parcel of the theatrics Plaintiff has

15 16
17

endured from the beginning of this dispute. The Defendants have consistently concealed, manipulated and/or misrepresented facts in this case, only to later feign shock and outrage when Plaintiffs pleadings (and/or notices of claim) failed to correctly identify those facts. Frankly, this ongoing and transparent abuse ofthe legal process warrants imposition of the

18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

stiffest sanctions this Court can muster. For the time-being, Plaintiff simply requests leave to amend his complaint to correct any inconsistencies that may have come to light as a result of the AAPA's latest revelations.

The District's responses to discovery specifically asserted as much See District's Third Supplemental Response to Plaintiffs Request for Admission No. 1, stating that "Chris Evans and the Arizona Academy for the Performing Arts ("AAPA") prepared the arrangement reflected in D15T00172-173 and D15T00174-175, a true and correct copy of which is attached to this Reply as Exhibit "A."

28

Case 2:04-cv-00341-RCB

PLA[NTIFF'S REPLY TO AAPA's RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MSJ -6

Document 143-3

Filed 09/06/2005

Page 1 of 1