Assigned To: Hon. R. Gary Klausner: D ' N M M D S

Case 2:15-cv-09938-RGK-E Document 20 Filed 02/22/16 Page 1 of 29 Page ID #:69
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Erin R. Ranahan (SBN: 235286)

[email protected]
Andrew S. Jick (SBN: 278943)
[email protected]
Kelly N. Oki (SBN: 304053)
[email protected]
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 615-1700
Facsimile: (213) 615-1750
Attorneys for Defendants,
AXANAR PRODUCTIONS, INC.,
and ALEC PETERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
PARAMOUNT PICTURES
CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation; and CBS STUDIOS INC., a
Delaware corporation
Plaintiffs,
vs.
AXANAR PRODUCTIONS, INC., a
California corporation; ALEC PETERS,
an individual; and DOES 1-20,
Defendants.
Case No. 2:15-cv-09938-RGK-E

Assigned to: Hon. R. Gary Klausner
DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF
MOTION AND MOTION TO
DISMISS PLAINTIFFS
COMPLAINT OR STRIKE
PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT IN
PART; MEMORANDUM OF
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
SUPPORT THEREOF
FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6), 8(a), 12(f)
20
Hearing Date:
Time:
March 21, 2016

9:00 a.m.
21
Complaint Filed: December 29, 2015
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS OR STRIKE
TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on March 21, 2016, at 9:00 a.m., or as soon
thereafter as this matter may be heard before the Honorable R. Gary Klausner of the
United States District Court for the Central District of California, in Courtroom 850 of
the above-entitled Court, located at 255 East Temple Street, Los Angeles, California
90012, Defendants Axanar Productions, Inc. and Alec Peters (hereinafter collectively
referred to as Defendants) will and hereby move, pursuant to Rules 12(b)(6), 8(a)
and/or 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,1 for an order dismissing all
claims against Defendants in this action and/or striking the claims in part (the
10
Motion).
11
12
In particular, Defendants seek an order striking the following allegations from

Plaintiffs Complaint:
The allegation and are in the process of producing a film called Axanar (the
13
14
Axanar Motion Picture) from paragraph 2;

The allegation and continues to write the script for and produce the Axanar
15
16
Motion Picture from paragraph 9;
17
The allegations contained in paragraphs 30 through 39;
18
The allegations contained in paragraphs 66 through 70; and
19
The allegations contained in paragraph 2 of the Prayer for Relief.
20
This Motion is brought pursuant to Rules 12(b)(6), 12(f) and 8(a) on the
21
grounds that Plaintiffs claims against Defendants fail to state a claim upon which
22
relief can be granted and fail to put Defendants on notice of the claims alleged against
23
them.
24
This Motion is based upon this Notice, the attached Memorandum of Points and
25
Authorities, all pleadings and papers filed in this action, and upon such other and
26
further submission, evidence, and argument as may be presented to the Court prior to
27
or at the time of hearing on this Motion.
28
This Motion is made following the
All further statutory references are to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure unless
otherwise stated.
1
conference of counsel, pursuant to L.R. 7-3, which took place on February 12, 2016.
2
3
Dated: February 22, 2016
4
5
6
7
8
By: /s/ Erin R. Ranahan

Erin R. Ranahan
Andrew S. Jick
Kelly N. Oki
AXANAR PRODUCTIONS, INC.
and ALEC PETERS
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
3
4
5
I.
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1
II.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND .............................................................................. 1
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
A.
The Parties .................................................................................................. 1
B.
The Star Trek Copyrighted Works ......................................................... 2
C.
The Short Mockumentary .......................................................................... 4
D.
The Potential Fan Film ............................................................................... 4
E.
Plaintiffs Specific Claims Against Defendants ........................................ 6
III.
LEGAL STANDARD .......................................................................................... 6
IV.
ARGUMENT........................................................................................................ 7
A.
13
Plaintiffs Claims Are Not Sufficiently Detailed To Survive .................... 7

1.
Plaintiffs Complaint Fails to Meet Minimum Pleading

Standards Because Plaintiffs Do Not Specify Which
Amongst Thousands of Alleged Copyrights Have Been
Infringed ........................................................................................... 7
16
2.
Plaintiffs Ownership Claims Are Implausible ............................. 11
17
3.
Plaintiffs Claims Are Improperly Based Upon Allegations

Made On Information And Belief .............................................. 11
14
15
18
B.
19
20
Plaintiffs Claims Based on the Potential Fan Film Should Be

Dismissed or Stricken Because They are Premature ............................... 13
1.
Plaintiffs Claims Based on the Potential Fan Film are

Unripe ............................................................................................ 14
2.
Enjoining the Potential Fan Film Would be a Prior Restraint ....... 19
3.
Plaintiffs Have Failed to Allege Any Violation of Plaintiffs

Rights With Respect to the Potential Fan Film ............................. 20
21
22
23
24
V.
CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 20
25
26
27
28
i
1
2
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
CASES
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
A & M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.,

239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir.2001) ............................................................................. 12
Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662 (2009).................................................................................. 6, 12, 13
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544 (2007)........................................................................................ 6, 15
Bucklew v. Hawkins, Ash, Baptie & Co., LLP.,
329 F.3d 923 (7th Cir. 2003) .............................................................................. 16
Chase-Riboud v. DreamWorks, Inc.,
987 F.Supp. 1222 (C.D. Cal. 1997) .................................................................... 17
Chestang v. Yahoo, Inc.,
No. 2:11-cv-00989-MCE-KJN PS, 2012 WL 3915957
(E.D. Cal. Sept. 7, 2012)................................................................................... 8, 9
Christianson v. West Pub. Co.,
149 F.2d 202 (9th Cir. 1945) .............................................................................. 10
Clinton v. Acequia, Inc.,
94 F.3d 568 (9th Cir. 1996) ................................................................................ 14
Cole v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
2012 WL 3133520 (S.D.N.Y. Aug.1, 2012) ........................................................ 7
Cutler v. Enzymes, Inc.,
No. C 08-04650 JF (RS), 2009 WL 482291 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2009) ............ 10
Danjaq, LLC v. Universal City Studios, LLC,
No. CV 14-02527 SJO (Ex), 2014 WL 7882071
(C.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2014) ...................................................................................... 18
Ellison v. Robertson,
357 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2004) ............................................................................ 13
Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty,
984 F.2d 1524 (9th Cir. 1993) rev'd on other grounds, 510 U.S. 517 (1994) ... 13
ii
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Four Navy Seals v. Associated Press,

413 F. Supp. 2d 1136 (S.D. Cal. 2005) ............................................................ 8, 9
Funky Films, Inc. v. Time Warner Entmt Co.,
462 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2006) ............................................................................ 15
Gilbert v. New Line Prods., Inc.,
No. CV 09-02231 RGK, 2009 WL 7422458 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2009) ........... 15
Globe Intl, Inc. v. Natl Enquirer, Inc.,
No. 98-10613 CAS (MANX), 1999 WL 727232 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 1999) 19, 20
Hendrickson v. eBay, Inc.,
165 F. Supp. 2d 1082 (C.D. Cal. 2001) ................................................................ 3
Hudson v. Universal Pictures Corp.,
No. 03-CV-1008(FB)(LB), 2004 WL 1205762 (E.D.N.Y. April 29, 2004) ...... 17
Intl Harvester Co. v. Deere & Co.,
623 F.2d 1207 (7th Cir. 1980) ............................................................................ 14
Litchfield v. Spielberg,
736 F.2d 1352 (9th Cir. 1984) ............................................................................ 16
Marshall v. McConnell,
No. Civ.A. 3:05-CV-1062L, 2006 WL 740081 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 23, 2006) ........ 7
Marshall v. Yates,
No. CV-81-1850-MML, 1983 WL 1148 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 1983) .................. 17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Mintel Learning Tech., Inc. v. Beijing Kaidi Educ.,

No. C 06-7541 PJH, 2007 WL 2288329 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2007) ..................... 7
Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart,
427 U.S. 539 (1976)............................................................................................ 19
New Name, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co.,
No. CV 07-5034 PA, 2007 WL 5061697 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2007)................... 12
New York Times Co. v. United States,
403 U.S. 713 (1971)............................................................................................ 19
Palmer Kane LLC v. Scholastic Corp.,
No. 12 Civ. 3890 (TPG), 2014 WL 1303135 (S.D. N.Y. Mar. 31, 2014) ....... 7, 8
iii
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,

508 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2007) ............................................................................ 20
Plunket v. Doyle,
No. 99 Civ. 11006 (KMW), 2001 WL 175252 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2001)........... 8
Portland Police Assn. v. City of Portland,
658 F.2d 1272 (9th Cir. 1981) ............................................................................ 14
Quirk v. Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc.,
No. C 11-3773 RS, 2013 WL 1345075 (N.D. Cal. April 2, 2013) .................... 17
Rice v. Fox Broad. Co.,
330 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir.2003) ............................................................................. 12
Richtek Tech. Corp. v. UPI Semiconductor Corp.,
No C 09-05659 WHA, 2011 WL 166198 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2011) ................. 12
Rosenfeld v. Twentieth Century Fox Film,
No. CV 07-7040 AHM FFMX, 2008 WL 4381575 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 25,
2008) ..................................................................................................................... 7
See v. Durang,
711 F.2d 141 (9th Cir. 1983) ........................................................................ 16, 17
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Sierra Applied Scis., Inc. v. Advanced Energy Indus., Inc.,

363 F. 3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ......................................................................... 14
Simonyan v. Ally Fin. Inc.,
No. CV 12-8495-JFW, 2013 WL 45453 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2013) ..................... 12
Solis v. City of Fresno,
No. 1:11-CV-00053 AWI GSA,
2012 WL 868681 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2012)...................................................... 12
Synopsys, Inc. v. ATopTech, Inc.,
No. C 12-CV-02965 SC, 2013 WL 5770542 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2013) ........... 10
24
25
26
27
UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Shelter Capital Partners LLC,

718 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2013) ............................................................................ 13
Universal Surface Tech., Inc. v. Sea-A Trading Am. Corp.,
No. CV 10-6972 CAS, 2011 WL 281020 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2011) ................... 8
28
iv
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Veoh Networks, Inc. v. UMG Recordings, Inc.,

522 F. Supp. 2d 1265 (S.D. Cal. 2007) .............................................................. 15
Vivendi SA v. T-Mobile USA Inc.,
586 F.3d 689 (9th Cir. 2009) .............................................................................. 12
Walker v. Time Life Films, Inc.,
615 F. Supp. 430 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) ..................................................................... 17
Walt Disney Productions v. Filmation Associates,
628 F.Supp. 871 (C.D. Cal. 1986) ................................................................ 18, 19
Warner Bros., Inc. v. Am. Broad. Cos.,
720 F.2d 231 (2d Cir. 1983) ............................................................................... 16
11
Zella v. E.W. Scripps Co.,

529 F. Supp. 2d 1124 (C.D. Cal. 2007) .............................................................. 10
12
STATUTES
13
17 U.S.C. 101 ........................................................................................................ 20
14
15
16
17 U.S.C. 103(b) ..................................................................................................... 9

17 U.S.C. 106 ........................................................................................................ 20
17
17 U.S.C. 504(c) ................................................................................................... 10
18
RULES
19
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 ..................................................................................................... 6, 8
20
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) ................................................................................................ 1, 7
21
22
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) ................................................................................................ 6
23
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) ......................................................................................... 1, 6
24
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) ................................................................................................. 13
25
26
27
28
v
1
2
OTHER AUTHORITIES
W. Landes & R. Posner, The Economic Structure of Intellectual Property Law

109 (2003) ........................................................................................................... 16
1 M. Nimmer & D. Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright ............................................... 16
5
6
7
8
4 Nimmer on Copyright 13.03[D] ........................................................................ 17

6 William F. Patry, Patry on Copyright (2015) ............................................... 7, 8, 11
5 Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure
1382 (1990) ...................................................................................................... 13
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
vi
I.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs lawsuit alleges copyright infringement against Defendants over one
short film, a mockumentary called Prelude to Axanar, and a longer film that has yet to
be created. Plaintiffs Complaint fails to satisfy minimum pleading requirements for
at least three reasons. First, while Plaintiffs allege ownership of thousands of
copyrights relating to Star Trek episodes and films, Plaintiffs fail to specify which of
those copyrights Defendants have allegedly infringed. Second, the Complaint is not
plausible regarding which Plaintiff owns which relevant work; instead, the Complaint
contradicts itself by alleging that both Plaintiffs own all the copyrights while also
10
relying on an assignment between them. Third, Plaintiffs improperly base their claims
11
largely on bare allegations of information and belief. Because Plaintiffs have failed to
12
provide the specificity necessary to allow Defendants the opportunity to reasonably
13
investigate or respond to Plaintiffs claims, Plaintiffs claims should be dismissed.
14
With respect to Plaintiffs claims regarding the longer film that has not been
15
made, there are additional defects. The claims are premature. Unlike Prelude to
16
Axanarwhich exists and thus allows Defendants the opportunity to demonstrate lack
17
of substantial similarity, fair use, and de minimis usethe same cannot be said for the
18
longer film. Moreover, seeking to stop the creation of a work at this stage would
19
operate as an impermissible prior restraint. And Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged
20
any violation of their rights where no work exists in a fixed, tangible form.
21
Because Plaintiffs Complaint does not satisfy the standard necessary to survive
22
this Motion under Rule 12(b)(6) or Rule 8(a), the Court should dismiss the claims.
23
II.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
24
A.
The Parties
25
Plaintiff Paramount Pictures Corporation (Paramount) is a major movie
26
studio. Plaintiff CBS Studios Inc. (CBS) is a major television studio. Defendant
27
Axanar Productions, Inc. (Axanar) is alleged on information and belief to be a
28
motion picture, television, and/or video production company. Compl. 8. Defendant

1
Alec Peters is an individual alleged to be the controlling principal of Axanar. Id. 9.
B.
The Star Trek Copyrighted Works
Plaintiffs allege that the Star Trek franchise was created by Gene Roddenberry.
Compl. 13. Plaintiffs allege that they own six Star Trek television series totaling
thousands of episodes (collectively, the Star Trek Television Series). Compl. 15
(emphasis added). Plaintiffs further allege that they own twelve Star Trek motion
pictures (the Star Trek Motion Pictures). Compl. 16. Plaintiffs define the Star
Trek Copyrighted Works by lumping the thousands of episodes from the Star Trek
Television Series and the twelve Star Trek Motion Pictures together. Id. at 18.
10
Plaintiffs do not explain in their Complaint when or how the chain of title
11
conferred which rights in the Star Trek Television Series and the Star Trek Motion
12
Pictures to which respective Plaintiff. Plaintiffs do not identify which entity owns
13
which copyrighted works; rather, Plaintiffs allegations lump both Plaintiffs together
14
and appear to allege collective ownership of all of the Star Trek Copyrighted
15
Works.
16
franchise), 18 (Plaintiffs own United States copyrights in the Star Trek Television
17
Series and the Star Trek Motion Pictures).
18
Complaint, Plaintiffs cite to a Copyright Assignment from Paramount Pictures
19
Corporation to CBS Studios Inc. (V3542 D684- V3542 D690). Compl., Appx. A.
20
Plaintiffs allege that the United States Copyright Office has issued Certificates of
21
Registration for the works identified in Appendix A. Compl. 18. In the Appendix,
22
Plaintiffs identify the registration numbers for each of the twelve Star Trek Motion
23
Pictures. For the Star Trek Television Series, however, Plaintiffs merely list each of
24
the five series and identify one episode from each. Compl., Appx. A. In a footnote,
25
Plaintiffs explain that Plaintiffs own the copyrights for all episodes of each Star Trek
26
television series, and have identified the copyright registrations for the first episode of
27
each television series. Id., n.1 (emphasis added).
28
E.g., Compl. 1 (Plaintiffs own the copyrights in this treasured
However, in the Appendix to the
The Star Trek Copyrighted Works do not all contain the same characters,
2
starships, plots, and other features.
chronicled the adventures of the U.S.S. Enterprise and its crew as they traveled
through space during the twenty-third century, and featured numerous original and
copyrightable elements, including but not limited to elements such as the plots of the
episodes, the Starship Enterprise, its bridge and other interior construction, other
original spacecraft, numerous original and fictitious races and species, including the
Vulcan race and the Klingon race, the United Federation of Planets (the Federation),
the history of the Federation, and original weapons and technology. Compl. 13.
As Plaintiffs allege, The Original Series
However, the other Star Trek Television Series contain very different plots,
10
characters, and other elements.
In The Next Generation, Star Trek returned to
11
television...but it revealed a universe with previously unexplored dimensions. Captain
12
Jean-Luc Picard (Patrick Stewart) took the helm of a very different Enterprise with
13
a[n entirely different] crew....2 By contrast, Voyager details the adventures of the
14
Starfleets most adventurous starship, the U.S.S. Voyager, as it is led by Captain
15
Kathryn Janeway (Mulgrew) on missions into deep space...Like Deep Space Nine,
16
early seasons of Voyager feature greater conflict between its crew than is seen in
17
earlier shows . . .3 And Enterprise was set in the 22nd century, a hundred years
18
before Captain Kirk appeared. Captain Jonathan Archer and his crew travel on a
19
revolutionary spacecraft, Enterprise NX-01, to explore unknown civilizations.4
20
Similarly, the Star Trek Motion Pictures differ significantly from the various
21
Television Series, and indeed, from each other. Plaintiffs have announced plans to
22
release a new Star Trek motion picture in 2016 and a new Star Trek television series
23
in January 2017, but they have not included these prospective works within their
24
definition of the allegedly infringed Star Trek Copyrighted Works.
25
26
2
27
28
http://www.cbsstore.com/detail.php?p=447284. Courts may take judicial notice of

facts published on Internet websites that are not reasonably subject to dispute. See,
e.g.,
Hendrickson v. eBay, Inc., 165 F. Supp. 2d 1082, 1084 n.2 (C.D. Cal. 2001).
3
http://www.cbsstore.com/detail.php?p=53085.
4
http://www.cbsstore.com/detail.php?p=53084.
3
C.
The Short Mockumentary
Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Peters wrote and Defendant Axanar produced a
short film called Prelude to Axanar. Compl. 21-23. To fund production,
Defendants used the crowdfunding website Kickstarter, promising fans Star Trek like
you have never seen it before.5 Compl. 28. The short, twenty-minute film is a
fictional documentary, also known as a mockumentary6 (hereafter, the Short
Mockumentary). See Compl. 28 (the Short Mockumentary will show[] the central
characters of Axanar giving both a historical and personal account of the war).
Plaintiffs allege that [i]n one of the episodes of The Original Series, James T. Kirk,
10
the Captain of the U.S.S. Enterprise, meets his hero, Garth of Izar, a former Starship
11
captain. Kirk and Garth discuss Garths victory in a battle at Axanar. Compl. 14
12
(emphasis added). The Short Mockumentary allegedly tells the story ofGarth of
13
Izar, during the war between the Federation and the Klingon Empire. Compl. 28.
14
Plaintiffs do not allege that Defendants included or referenced any of the main
15
Star Trek characters (e.g., Captain Kirk, Spock) in the Short Mockumentary.
16
Plaintiffs do not allege that any of the plot lines of any episodes or films are
17
substantially similar to Defendants works. Plaintiffs do not allege that Defendants
18
profited in any way from the Short Mockumentary. As Plaintiffs admit, Defendants
19
funded the Short Mockumentary by raising money through Kickstarter donations, and,
20
once it was completed, they posted it online, making it available for free.7 Compl.
21
21, 26. Plaintiffs do not allege how they were harmed by the Short Mockumentary.
22
Defendants have never sold tickets, DVDs, charged to view or otherwise
23
commercialized the Short Mockumentary, and there is no allegation to the contrary.
24
D.
25
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants are in the process of producing a film called
26
27
28
The Potential Fan Film
Incidentally, this allegation contradicts the notion that the Short Mockumentary is
substantially
similar to any of Plaintiffs alleged copyrighted works.
6
See http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mockumentary (a mockumentary is a
movie
or television show depicting fictional events but presented as a documentary).
7
Though the Short Mockumentary has been available online since 2014, Plaintiffs
never complained to Axanar about it until filing this lawsuit on December 29, 2015.
4
Axanar (the Potential Fan Film).
Compl. 2.
Although Plaintiffs allege that
Defendants have created a script for the film, Plaintiffs also allege that Defendant
Alec Peters continues to write the script for and produce the film (Compl. 31, 9)
and that certain Doe Defendants continue to write the screenplay. Id. 34.8
Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants have announced that filming will
begin in January 2016. Compl. 30. The Complaint was filed December 29, 2015.
On January 21, 2016, the Parties filed a stipulation extending Defendants time to
respond to the Complaint, which reflected the parties agreement that no shooting or
filming of the motion picture entitled Axanar will commence or continue through the
10
date of the extension. (Dkt. 19.) Even though Plaintiffs have never actually seen the
11
Potential Fan Film (no one has, as it simply does not exist), Plaintiffs presumptively
12
allege that the Potential Fan Film is substantially similar and has the same feel and
13
mood to some unspecified number of Plaintiffs alleged works; and that it is neither
14
a parody nor fair use. (Compl. p. 8, 50, 52, 59.)
15
Plaintiffs allege that the Potential Fan Film takes place in the year 2245, 21
16
years before the events of Where No Man Has Gone Before the only work that
17
Plaintiffs allege Garth of Izar has appeared in. Compl. 38; see id. 14 (alleging that
18
Garth of Izar appears in one of the episodes of The Original Series). Plaintiffs
19
allege that the film tells the story of Garth and his crew during the Four Years War.
20
Id.
21
numerous elements of the Star Trek Copyrighted Works into the Axanar screenplay
22
and the Vulcan Scene, and will incorporate those elements into the Axanar Motion
23
Picture. Id. 39. With respect to the Vulcan Scene, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants
24
violated unspecified copyrights based on the look and feel of the planet,
25
costumes, pointy ears and an unspecified hairstyle. Id. at 48. Plaintiffs allege
26
that the Potential Fan Film includes allegedly infringing costumes consisting of
27
bright solid-colored sweaters with black pants that are substantially similar to
28
Plaintiffs allege, on information and belief, that Defendants incorporated
Indeed, there are currently multiple versions of the script, and others in progress,
which Defendants have adjusted since learning of Plaintiffs concerns.
5
unspecified works allegedly owned by Plaintiffs. Compl. 47.
Plaintiffs do not allege that Defendants plan to profit in any way from the
Potential Fan Film. Plaintiffs do not allege that Defendants plan to sell tickets, DVDs,
or to charge anyone to view the work online. Nor do Plaintiffs allege any specific
facts showing how they have been or will be harmed by the Potential Fan Film.
E.
Plaintiffs Specific Claims Against Defendants
Plaintiffs allege four claims against Defendants: (1) direct copyright
infringement; (2) contributory copyright infringement; (3) vicarious copyright
infringement; and (4) declaratory relief. With respect to their claims for direct and
10
secondary copyright infringement, Plaintiffs allegations are almost exclusively made
11
in conclusory form on information and belief. Compl. 57, 59, 60, 63, 64.
12
III.
LEGAL STANDARD
13
In order to survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must
14
contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
15
plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A plaintiffs
16
obligation to provide the grounds of his entitle[ment] to relief requires more than
17
labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of a cause of actions elements will
18
not do.
19
speculative level... Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 545 (2007).
Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the
20
Rule 8(a)(2) requires that a pleading set forth a short and plain statement of the
21
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief and giving the defendant fair
22
notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests. Twombly, 550
23
U.S. at 554-56. Where a complaint fails to satisfy the pleading standards set forth by
24
Rule 8, it must be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon
25
which relief can be granted. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.
26
As discussed herein, Plaintiffs claims fall short of what is necessary to put
27
Defendants on fair notice of any plausible claims against them under Twombly and
28
Iqbal, and the claims against Defendants should be dismissed.

6
IV.
ARGUMENT
A.
Courts have routinely found conclusory allegations of copyright infringement to
be insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. See, e.g., Rosenfeld v. Twentieth
Century Fox Film, No. CV 07-7040 AHM FFMX, 2008 WL 4381575, at *7 (C.D.
Cal. Sept. 25, 2008) (dismissing copyright infringement claim where the plaintiffs
allegations, which did not specify the copyrighted works at issue, failed to provide
sufficient notice of the basis for the claim); Mintel Learning Tech., Inc. v. Beijing
Kaidi Educ., No. C 06-7541 PJH, 2007 WL 2288329, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2007)
10
(dismissing the plaintiffs conclusory allegations). For the reasons set forth below,
11
Plaintiffs Complaint fails to put Defendants on sufficient notice of their claims.
12
Plaintiffs Claims Are Not Sufficiently Detailed To Survive
1.
Plaintiffs Complaint Fails to Meet Minimum Pleading
13
Standards Because Plaintiffs Do Not Specify Which Amongst
14
Thousands of Alleged Copyrights Have Been Infringed
15
In a complaint alleging copyright infringement, in order to give fair notice of
16
the claim, [a] plaintiff must identify both the work alleged to have been infringed and
17
the infringing work; merely asserting that certain works have been copied is
18
insufficient. 6 William F. Patry, Patry on Copyright 19:6 (2015); Palmer Kane
19
LLC v. Scholastic Corp., No. 12 Civ. 3890 (TPG), 2014 WL 1303135, at *3 (S.D.N.Y.
20
Mar. 31, 2014) (finding the plaintiffs failure to properly specify the copyrights
21
allegedly infringed upon was sufficient grounds for dismissal); Cole v. John Wiley &
22
Sons, Inc., 2012 WL 3133520, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. Aug.1, 2012) (dismissing copyright
23
infringement claims where the plaintiff failed to allege whether any or all of his
24
copyrights were infringed); Marshall v. McConnell, No. Civ.A. 3:05-CV-1062L, 2006
25
WL 740081, at *4 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 23, 2006) (finding the plaintiff failed to satisfy
26
Rule 8(a) where allegations could have related to any number of allegedly copyrighted
27
works, thus leaving the defendants without sufficient notice as to how to defend
28
against the claims).

7
Where, as here, multiple works are alleged to have been infringed, care should
be taken to identify each work at issue. Patry, 19:6; Plunket v. Doyle, No. 99 Civ.
11006 (KMW), 2001 WL 175252, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2001) (finding fair
notice requir[es] that the plaintiff allegewhich specific original works are the
subject of the copyright claim, and dismissing the plaintiffs claims for failure to
comply with Rule 8, where the plaintiffs multi-page schedule of allegedly infringed
works stated that her claims were not limited to those listed works); Palmer Kane
LLC, 2014 WL 1303135, at *3-4 (granting motion to dismiss where the plaintiffs list
of allegedly infringed works was not exhaustive).
10
In Four Navy Seals v. Associated Press, the court granted the defendants
11
motion to dismiss where the complaint [did] not identify exactly which works
12
Defendants infringed 413 F. Supp. 2d 1136, 1148 (S.D. Cal. 2005). Specifically,
13
where the plaintiffs asserted that at least one of the 1800 works that the plaintiffs
14
alleged they owned were copiedand distributed, neither the defendants nor the
15
court were put on sufficient notice of the copyright claims at issue. Id.; see also
16
Universal Surface Tech., Inc. v. Sea-A Trading Am. Corp., No. CV 10-6972 CAS
17
(PJWx), 2011 WL 281020, at *4-6 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2011) (finding complaint listing
18
82 copyrights allegedly infringed insufficient to put the defendant on notice as to
19
which copyrights were infringed and how they were infringed). Relying on the Four
20
Navy Seal courts analysis, the court in Chestang v. Yahoo, Inc. similarly found that a
21
plaintiff must, at a minimum, identify the copyrighted material at issue with
22
specificity sufficient to put defendant on notice of what he claims was infringed. No.
23
2:11-cv-00989-MCE-KJN PS, 2012 WL 3915957, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 7, 2012). As
24
such, the complaint, which included vague allegations of infringement, and which
25
failed to identify which works defendants allegedly infringed, was insufficient to
26
survive a motion to dismiss. Id. at *4.
27
Like the plaintiffs in Four Navy Seals, Chestang, and the many cases listed
28
above, Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy their minimum pleading requirement to

8
identify exactly which works Defendants infringed, and have thus failed to put
Defendants on notice of their claims. Id.; Four Navy Seals, 413 F. Supp. 2d at
1148. As Plaintiffs Complaint currently stands, Defendants have no way of
determining which copyrights, or how many copyrights, Defendants allegedly
infringed among the thousands of copyrights that Plaintiffs allege they own.
Appendix A to the Complaint states that Plaintiffs own the copyrights for all
episodes of each Star Trek television series, and have identified the copyright
registrations for the first episode of each television series. Compl., Appx. A, n.1.
Plaintiffs improperly attempt to leave Defendants guessing about the scope of their
10
claims against Defendants by suggesting that Defendants could have infringed
11
thousands of copyrights, which would require Defendants to sift through each
12
movie and television episode to attempt to determine what Plaintiffs claims are. As
13
shown above, courts have time and again expressly rejected this approach.
14
And yet Plaintiffs also include allegations that suggest the scope of this action is
15
narrow. Plaintiffs concede that Garth of Izarthe character allegedly featured in
16
Defendants worksis an obscure character that appeared in only one episode.
17
Compl. 14. But Plaintiffs do not identify that episode as an infringed work, and
18
instead imply that copyrights in some unspecified number of episodes and movies
19
have been infringed upon without specifying how. Further, Plaintiffs fail to recognize
20
the vast differences between the motion pictures, television series, and episodes.9
21
Plaintiffs do not allege that Defendants are engaged in wholesale copying of
22
each Star Trek motion picture and television episode, or even that Defendants lift
23
substantial material from each of Plaintiffs alleged works. Plaintiffs conclusory
24
allegations do little to put Defendants on adequate notice of the claims against them.
25
Thus, Defendants are at a loss to determine which of Plaintiffs works they have
26
9
27
28
And of course to the extent that subsequent derivative works contain the same
elements as the original work, only the new elements are protected by the subsequent
copyright. 17 U.S.C. 103(b) ([c]opyright in a derivative work extends only to
the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the
preexisting material employed in the work).
9
allegedly infringed upon. See Synopsys, Inc. v. ATopTech, Inc., No. C 12-CV-02965
SC, 2013 WL 5770542, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2013) (dismissing claim where the
plaintiff failed to make clear what Defendant copied, which ma[de] it impossible for
the Court to find plaintiffs claim plausible).
Particularly where, as here, only two works are alleged to have infringed upon
Plaintiffs copyrighted works, Plaintiffs must state which acts constituted the
infringement alleged. See, e.g., Cutler v. Enzymes, Inc., No. C 08-04650 JF (RS),
2009 WL 482291, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2009) (distinguishing ability of a plaintiff
to specify how the defendant infringed upon its copyright where few works are
10
allegedly infringing, from cases in which thousands of works are allegedly infringing).
11
Defendants are not asking that Plaintiffs be required to list the copyright registration
12
number and date for every motion picture and television episode that it alleges it
13
owns. Rather, Defendants simply seek to narrow the field of inquiry to those specific
14
episodes, films and elements that were allegedly infringed upon, to provide notice of
15
and allow investigation into the claims and potential exposure of this case.10 As the
16
Short Mockumentary is only twenty minutes long and freely available online, and the
17
Vulcan Scene (the only completed scene in the Potential Fan Film) is even shorter,
18
Plaintiffs should easily be able to properly specify their claims.
19
Plaintiffs failure to specify the works at issue in this action has also prevented
20
Defendants from showing at this early stage that the Short Mockumentary is not
21
infringing. See, e.g., Christianson v. West Pub. Co., 149 F.2d 202, 203 (9th Cir. 1945)
22
(where the copyrighted work and the alleged infringement are both before the court,
23
capable of examination and comparison, non-infringement can be determined on a
24
motion to dismiss); see also Zella v. E.W. Scripps Co., 529 F. Supp. 2d 1124, 1130
25
(C.D. Cal. 2007) (The Court may assess copyright infringement as a matter of law on
26
10
27
28
Plaintiffs pleading approach is particularly troubling given that a claim for alleged
willful copyright infringement carries a statutory damages penalty as high as $150,000
per infringed work. 17 U.S.C. 504(c). Without knowing how many works are at
issue, Defendants cannot evaluate the scope of this action and the prospects for
potential resolution of Plaintiffs claims prior to a costly discovery process.
10
the [ ] motion to dismiss.). While courts have thus assessed whether a work is not
infringing on a motion to dismiss, that would necessarily require that Plaintiffs
identify the copyrights at issue (which they have not done).11
4
5
Because Plaintiffs have not properly specified which of their works have been
infringed in this action, the Court should dismiss Plaintiffs claims.
2.
Plaintiffs Ownership Claims Are Implausible
Plaintiffs have also failed to specify which Plaintiff owns which allegedly
infringed copyrights. Based on the Complaint, it is unclear whether Plaintiffs are
claiming co-ownership of all the works at issue, or whether Plaintiffs claim to own
10
separate works at issue. And in fact, Plaintiffs Complaint is inconsistent in this
11
regard. Plaintiffs first allege that they apparently both currently own all the Star Trek
12
Copyrighted Works. Compl. 1, 18. But elsewhere in the Complaint, Plaintiffs
13
refer to an assignment between Plaintiffs that would impact ownership. Compl., Appx.
14
A (citing to a Copyright Assignment from Paramount Pictures Corporation to CBS
15
Studios Inc. (V3542 D684- V3542 D690).) Which Plaintiff owns which alleged
16
copyrights is critical to Defendants investigation into Plaintiffs claims, as it could be
17
that the only works that Plaintiffs are actually alleging Defendants infringed are
18
owned by one Plaintiff as opposed to the other. Patry, 19:7 (where plaintiff is not
19
the author...ownership via transfer of exclusive rights comporting with section 204(a)
20
must be alleged...). Plaintiffs joint ownership allegation is not plausible in light of
21
the contradicting information in the Complaint regarding assignment, presenting
22
another ground upon which dismissal is proper.
23
3.
24
Plaintiffs Claims Are Improperly Based Upon Allegations

Made On Information And Belief
25
Many of Plaintiffs allegations are devoid of any supporting facts and based
26
solely on information and belief. Comp. 22, 23, 24, 26, 31, 32, 33, 34, 39, 57, 59,
27
11
28
And with respect to the Potential Fan Film, Plaintiffs do not and cannot plausibly
plead alleged infringement with any specificity, as they (like the Court) simply will
not and cannot know what the finished product will look like until it is completed.
11
60, 63, 64. But [i]n the post-Twombly and Iqbal era, pleading on information and
belief, without more, is insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim. Solis v. City of Fresno, No. 1:11-CV-00053 AWI GSA, 2012 WL 868681, at
*8 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2012); Vivendi SA v. T-Mobile USA Inc., 586 F.3d 689, 694
(9th Cir. 2009) (finding allegations based on information and belief insufficient);
Simonyan v. Ally Fin. Inc., No. CV 12-8495-JFW (FMOx), 2013 WL 45453, at *2
(C.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2013) (noting that factual allegationsbased on information and
belief and contain[ing] nothing more than a rote recitation of the required elements
for each respective claimfall well short of the requirements set forth in Iqbal);
10
Richtek Tech. Corp. v. UPI Semiconductor Corp., No C 09-05659 WHA, 2011 WL
11
166198, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2011) (rejecting argument that the defendants were
12
put on notice by the formulaic recitation of the elements and conclusory allegations
13
made on information and belief in the plaintiffs copyright infringement action).
14
Plaintiffs here have alleged direct, contributory, and vicarious copyright
15
infringement largely on information and belief.12 Compl., 57, 59-60, 63-64.
16
Such [b]ald recitations of legal conclusionsdo not state a claim upon which relief
17
can be granted. Richtek, 2011 WL 166198, at *3; see also New Name, Inc. v. Walt
18
Disney Co., No. CV 07-5034 PA (RZx), 2007 WL 5061697, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 3,
19
2007) (granting motion to dismiss where allegations on information and belief were
20
speculative and an improper formulaic recitation of the elements of infringement).
21
To show direct copyright infringement, Plaintiffs must prove (1) ownership of a
22
valid copyright, and (2) copying of constituent elements of the work that are original.
23
Rice v. Fox Broad. Co., 330 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir. 2003). Plaintiffs allegation of
24
copying is on information and belief, and nowhere does the Complaint identify
25
the precise works that were allegedly copied. (Compl. 57.)
26
12
27
28
It is well-established that[s]econdary liability for copyright infringement does not

exist in the absence of direct infringement.... A & M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.,
239 F.3d 1004, 1013 (9th Cir.2001). Thus, to the extent that the Court dismisses the
direct copyright infringement claims for any reason addressed in this Motion, the
secondary claims should likewise be dismissed.
12
To show contributory infringement, Plaintiffs must show that Defendants
materially contributed to the infringement with knowledge of the infringing activity.
UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Shelter Capital Partners LLC, 718 F.3d 1006, 1031 (9th Cir.
2013).
including that Defendants had requisite knowledge13 that they created infringing
works that were substantially similar to some unspecified copyrights. (Compl.
63-64.) This is not enough.
Plaintiffs again allege these elements only on information and belief,
To show vicarious infringement, Plaintiffs must show that Defendants:
(1) enjoy a direct financial benefit from the infringement, and (2) have declined to
10
exercise the right and ability to supervise or control that infringing activity. Ellison v.
11
Robertson, 357 F.3d 1072, 1078 (9th Cir. 2004). Plaintiffs Complaint does not state
12
facts supporting either of these elements. Instead, the allegations are again made
13
solely on information and belief, and merely restate the elements of the claim.
14
Nowhere do Plaintiffs allege facts as to how Defendants have enjoyed a direct
15
financial benefit. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (Threadbare recitals of the elements of
16
a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.).
17
Plaintiffs allegations are too conclusory for their copyright claims to survive.
18
B.
19
Plaintiffs Claims Based on the Potential Fan Film Should Be

Dismissed or Stricken Because They are Premature
20
Compounding Plaintiffs failure to plead their copyright claims with specificity
21
is Plaintiffs attempt to assert copyright claims based on a film which has not even
22
been made yet. Plaintiffs claims based on the Potential Fan Film are premature,
23
unripe, and would constitute an impermissible prior restraint on speech.
24
Plaintiffs claims should be dismissed or stricken.14 Plaintiffs concede that (with the
25
13
26
27
28
Thus,
And in fact, Defendants had no such knowledge. CBS and Paramount have a long
history of tolerating Star Trek fan projects, which contribute to the cultural
phenomenon, and are celebrated by millions of Star Trek fans. Compl. 1; see,
e.g.,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Star_Trek_fan_productions.
14
Under Rule 12(f), a court may order stricken from any pleading ... any redundant,
immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter. Immaterial matter is that which has
no essential or important relationship to the claim for relief or the defenses being
pleaded. 5 Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure
13
exception of the Vulcan Scene) the Potential Fan Film has not yet been made. As
Plaintiffs acknowledge, Defendants are in the process of producing the Potential
Fan Film. Compl. 2 (emphasis added). Mr. Peters continues to write the script
for the Potential Fan Film. Id. 9 (emphasis added). Indeed, there are multiple
versions of the script, and the script is still being revised and re-written. Under these
circumstances, the Court should not permit Plaintiffs to proceed with their copyright
claims to the extent they are based on the Potential Fan Film itself.
1.
Plaintiffs Claims Based on the Potential Fan Film are Unripe
A federal court will not resolve issues involving contingent future events that
10
may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all. Clinton v. Acequia,
11
Inc., 94 F.3d 568, 572 (9th Cir. 1996). Accordingly, [b]efore a case is justiciable in
12
federal court, it must be alleged that the plaintiff is threatened by injury that is both
13
real and immediate, [and] not conjectural or hypothetical. Portland Police Assn. v.
14
City of Portland, 658 F.2d 1272, 1273 (9th Cir. 1981). Without such immediacy and
15
certainty of injury the dispute is not ripe; it has not matured sufficiently to warrant
16
judicial intervention. Id.
17
In analogous cases seeking declaratory relief, courts have dismissed copyright
18
claims as premature unless a party seeking relief can establish that the potentially
19
infringing work presented to the court is the same product which will be produced if
20
a declaration of noninfringement is obtained. Sierra Applied Scis., Inc. v. Advanced
21
Energy Indus., Inc., 363 F. 3d 1361, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see Intl Harvester Co. v.
22
Deere & Co., 623 F.2d 1207, 1216 (7th Cir. 1980) (Our concern is not that the
23
[product at issue] will never be produced, but rather that because of the relatively
24
early stage of its development, the design which is before us now may not be the
25
design which is ultimately produced and marketed.). To establish an actual
26
controversy, [t]he disagreement must not be nebulous or contingent, but must have
27
1382, at 70607 (1990). Impertinent matter consists of statements that do not

pertain, and are not necessary, to the issues in question. Id. at 711; see Fantasy, Inc.
v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524, 1527 (9th Cir. 1993) rev'd on other grounds, 510 U.S. 517
(1994) (affirming order striking allegations).
28
14
taken on a fixed and final shape so that a court can see what legal issues it is deciding
and what effects its decision will have on the adversaries. Veoh Networks, Inc. v.
UMG Recordings, Inc., 522 F. Supp. 2d 1265, 1269 (S.D. Cal. 2007).
Here, Plaintiffs claims against Defendants based on the Potential Fan Film are
unripe because the allegedly infringing work does not yet exist. To determine whether
there is substantial similarity between the Star Trek works and the allegedly infringing
Potential Fan Film, this Court must be able to compare the relevant works. See, e.g.,
Funky Films, Inc. v. Time Warner Entmt Co., 462 F.3d 1072, 1076 (9th Cir. 2006).
As this Court has stated, for the extrinsic similarity analysis, the court may compare
10
the two works for similarities in the plot, themes, dialogue, mood, setting, pace,
11
characters, and sequence of events. Gilbert v. New Line Prods., Inc., No. CV 09-
12
02231 RGK, 2009 WL 7422458, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2009) (Klausner, J.).
13
Plaintiffs have alleged infringement of twelve movies and thousands of television
14
episodes spanning five series and fifty years. Compl. 1, 15.
15
Until the film has been completed, the Court will not be able to compare
16
Defendants film with the relevant Star Trek films and episodes at issue to determine
17
whether the themes, mood, setting, pace, plot and characters are substantially similar.
18
Moreover, to the extent any of the elements Plaintiffs are complaining about are
19
actually protectable, Defendants intend to vigorously defend their use (if any) as a fair
20
use.
21
Defendants film, whether it is transformative, or a parody, and the amount and
22
substantiality taken (if any). Similarly, the Court will not be able to evaluate any de
23
minimis use defense.15
Without a film, the Court cannot evaluate the purpose and character of
24
The mere allegation that the Potential Fan Film is intended to be an
25
unauthorized derivative work does not suffice to state a claim. Even if the Potential
26
Fan Film were derived from or inspired by any of the Star Trek Copyrighted Works,
27
15
28
Plaintiffs allegations that the Potential Fan Film is substantially similar and does
notconstitute fair use are legal conclusions, not facts, and need not be accepted by
this Court. See Compl. 40-53. Moreover, as discussed above, these allegations are
not plausible. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 554-56.
15
it will only be a derivative work if it appropriates protected expression from those
works. See W. Landes & R. Posner, The Economic Structure of Intellectual Property
Law 109 (2003) (If there is no copying of copyrighted material, the fact that a work
derived from, in the sense of being inspired or suggested by, a previous work does not
make the second work an infringement of the first.); Bucklew v. Hawkins, Ash,
Baptie & Co., LLP., 329 F.3d 923, 930 (7th Cir. 2003) (In some cases a work, though
derivative in a literal sense, is so utterly transformed as to bear no traces of the
original; and then there is no infringement). Indeed, [a] work is not derivative unless
it has substantially copied from a prior work. 1 M. Nimmer & D. Nimmer, Nimmer
10
on Copyright, 3.01 at 3-3. The Ninth Circuit has held that [a] work will be
11
considered a derivative work only if it would be considered an infringing work if the
12
material which it has derived from a prior work had been taken without the consent of
13
a copyright proprietor of such work. Litchfield v. Spielberg, 736 F.2d 1352, 1357
14
(9th Cir. 1984) (emphasis in original). Until the film is completed, the Court will not
15
be able to evaluate whether the Potential Fan Film substantially copied protected
16
expression from the Star Trek works.
17
As courts have also recognized, a defendant may legitimately avoid
18
infringement by intentionally making changes in a work which would otherwise be
19
regarded as substantially similar to that of the plaintiffs. Warner Bros., Inc. v. Am.
20
Broad. Cos., 720 F.2d 231, 241 (2d Cir. 1983); See v. Durang, 711 F.2d 141, 142 (9th
21
Cir. 1983) (Copying deleted or so disguised as to be unrecognizable is not copying).
22
Plaintiffs premature claims seek to prevent Defendants from avoiding liability by
23
making changes to the Potential Fan Films script to address Plaintiffs concerns.
24
This is contrary to the letter and spirit of copyright law, and should be rejected.
25
Plaintiffs allegation, on information and belief, that Defendants have written a
26
script does not resolve this issue. Plaintiffs allege that the Axanar Works infringe
27
Plaintiffs copyrights in the Star Trek Copyrighted Works. Compl. 2, 40, 57.
28
Plaintiffs do not allege that the script for the Potential Fan Film, or any of the various
16
past, present, or future drafts thereof, infringe their copyrights. Plaintiffs are instead
focused on visual depictions like clothing, hairstyles, weapons and a bridge.
Even if some version of the script (there are many) contained alleged
infringements, and there were plot similarities or other elements to analyze between
the script and Plaintiffs alleged works (which Plaintiffs do not allege in their
Complaint), courts have routinely rejected requests to consider earlier drafts of the
screenplay on the basis that [c]onsideration of earlier versions of the screenplay is
too unreliable in determining substantial similarity. Walker v. Time Life Films, Inc.,
615 F. Supp. 430, 435 (S.D.N.Y. 1985); See, 711 F.2d at 142 (plaintiff not allowed
10
discovery of early drafts); Quirk v. Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc., No. C 11-
11
3773 RS, 2013 WL 1345075, at *6 (N.D. Cal. April 2, 2013) (even assuming the
12
preliminary draftsinclude indications of copying that was later deleted or revised,
13
the only relevant question is whether the final movie as filmed, edited, and released
14
contains matter substantially similar to protectable elements of the copyrighted
15
work); Hudson v. Universal Pictures Corp., No. 03-CV-1008(FB)(LB), 2004 WL
16
1205762, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. April 29, 2004) (The Court is under no obligation to
17
consider the draft scripts[.]); Marshall v. Yates, No. CV-81-1850-MML, 1983 WL
18
1148, at *2 n.2 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 1983) (refusing to consider draft screenplays or
19
the shooting script of movie because [s]uch preliminary drafts are not relevant).
20
Rather, it is the works as they were presented to the public that are relevant,
21
not preliminary internal drafts. Walker, 615 F. Supp. at 434; see Chase-Riboud v.
22
DreamWorks, Inc., 987 F.Supp. 1222, 1227 n.5 (C.D. Cal. 1997) (to determine
23
substantial similarity, the court need only consider the final version of [defendants]
24
film as presented to the viewing public); 4 Nimmer on Copyright 13.03[D]
25
([C]ourts have routinely rejected requests to consider earlier [screenplay] drafts.).
26
Accordingly, the existence of draft scripts for the Potential Fan Film does not save
27
Plaintiffs deficient claims, which are based on the visual aspects of the film itself.
28
Plaintiffs can be expected to rely on the ruling denying the defendants motion
17
to dismiss in Danjaq, LLC v. Universal City Studios, LLC, No. CV 14-02527 SJO
(Ex), 2014 WL 7882071 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2014). There, however, the plaintiffs
complaint made clear that their claims were based on the screenplay itself, not just the
movie in production. See Danjaq Complaint, 2014 WL 1335411, 56-64 (C.D. Cal.)
(alleging that the Section 6 screenplay is substantially similar to plaintiffs
copyrighted works), 69 (alleging that defendants infringed plaintiffs copyrights by
preparing unauthorized derivative works in the form of the Section 6 screenplay and
revisions thereto). Here, by contrast (and among many other differences), Plaintiffs
copyright claims are based only on the Axanar Works, not the screenplay.16
10
Also distinguishable is a district court case from thirty years ago where Disney
11
brought a copyright infringement claim against Filmation, a company that produced
12
and distributed animated films, based on certain animated character depictions of
13
Pinocchio and Gepetto. Walt Disney Productions v. Filmation Associates, 628 F.
14
Supp. 871, 874 (C.D. Cal. 1986). In that case, the defendant had completed several
15
components of the production which allowed assessment of the copyright claims;
16
namely, the story board, story reel, promotional trailer, model, and other physical
17
reproductions of the allegedly infringing character designs. The court found that
18
collectively, those materials constituted a substantial body of work preliminary to a
19
finished film that allowed the copyright claims to proceed because in that case, it was
20
still possible to use those items to compare the visual resemblances and the
21
16
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
In Danjaq, the plaintiffs allegedly owned the copyright to the James Bond character
and motion pictures. Id. at *1. Defendant Berg was alleged to have written a
screenplay titled Section 6, which he offered for sale. Id. Defendant Universal
allegedly purchased the rights to the screenplay for up to $ 2 million, and was
developing Section 6. Id. The Section 6 screenplay featured a British spy named Alec
Duncan, who introduced himself as Duncan. Alec Duncan. Other similarities
existed between the main character and plots. Id. at *2. Here, by contrast, Plaintiffs
have not alleged that a script was sold to anyone (it was not), that Defendants
purchased a script (they did not), or even that one definitive script exists (it does not).
Indeed, Plaintiffs admit that Mr. Peters continues to write the script for the Potential
Fan Film. Compl. 9. Further, Plaintiffs do not (and cannot) accuse Defendants of
copying any major Star Trek character, such as Captain Kirk or Spock, let alone their
catch phrases. And unlike Defendants, Universal was competing against the
plaintiffs; it was not seeking to produce a non-profit, fan-made work inspired by its
love for James Bond. Defendants here are neither commercializing their work nor
competing against Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs do not allege that they are.
18
totality of the characters attributes and traits between the characters. Id.
There are no allegations that the Potential Fan Film has progressed nearly as far
as the movie in Filmation had, as there are no allegations of a story board, story reel,
promotional trailer, or other model of the alleged infringements that could allow a
meaningful comparison between the works. Moreover, Plaintiffs are not alleging
copyrights to any characters here, and there is no explanation as to how Plaintiffs
intend to compare the traits and attributes of the works here (e.g., hairstyles, costumes,
bridges and weapons) without the Potential Fan Film. Further, Filmation involved
copyrights to cartoon characters and an animated film, whereas the characters
10
Defendants have used are not alleged to be alike visually, but instead are more
11
conceptual, and will be portrayed by actors. It would not be possible here to look at a
12
picture and judge the similarity between Defendants Garth and the Garth
13
appearing in Star Trek like it was for the characters in Filmation.17
14
2.
Enjoining the Potential Fan Film Would be a Prior Restraint
15
According to the Supreme Court, a prior restraint is the the most serious and
16
the least tolerable infringement of First Amendment rights, Nebraska Press Ass'n v.
17
Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 559 (1976), and is presumptively unconstitutional. See New
18
York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 714 (1971) (request for prior restraint
19
comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity).
20
In Globe Int'l, Inc. v. Nat'l Enquirer, Inc., the Globe sought an order blocking
21
publication by the Enquirer of a hypothetical article the Enquirer has not published
22
(and might not publish), based on an interview Ms. Johnson has not yet even given.
23
No. 98-10613 CAS (MANX), 1999 WL 727232, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 1999). The
24
court denied the plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that such an
25
order would be a prior restraint. Recognizing that the fair use defense requires a
26
case-by-case determination, the Court held that it may not rule that any future use of
27
the Globes materials by the Enquirerwould automatically fail the case-specific fair
28
17
Further, the animated film in Filmation was also being distributed for commercial
purposes; whereas here, Defendants works are not.
19
use test. Id. at *6 (quoting Harper & Row, 471 U.S. at 549).
As in Globe Intl, fair use cannot be evaluated in a vacuum, and allowing
Plaintiffs to seek an injunction against creating the Potential Fan Film would
constitute an impermissible prior restraint.
3.
Plaintiffs Have Failed to Allege Any Violation of Plaintiffs

Rights With Respect to the Potential Fan Film
Plaintiffs fail to state a claim based on the Potential Fan Film because, with the
exception of one scene, Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged that Defendants violated
any of Plaintiffs rights under 17 U.S.C. 106. Plaintiffs have not alleged any facts
10
showing that Defendants have prepare[d] a derivative work based on the Star Trek
11
Copyrighted Works because the Potential Fan Film has not been made. 17 U.S.C.
12
106(1). And there are no allegations that Defendants have reproduce[d] Plaintiffs
13
copyrighted works in copies. 17 U.S.C. 106(2).
14
objectsin which a work is fixed. 17 U.S.C. 101. A work that has not been made
15
is not fixed in any material object. See Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508
16
F.3d 1146, 1159-63 (9th Cir. 2007). For the same reasons, Plaintiffs conclusory
17
allegations that Defendants have distributed copies of or publicly performed the
18
Potential Fan Film are implausible. 17 U.S.C. 101(3), (4); Compl. 57. Thus,
19
Plaintiffs claims based on the Potential Fan Film should be dismissed or stricken.
20
V.
Copies are material
CONCLUSION
21
Plaintiffs have failed to put Defendants on fair notice of their claims, which are
22
not plausible, and seek premature relief. Defendants respectfully request that the
23
Court grant their motion to dismiss or strike Plaintiffs claims.
24
Dated: February 22, 2016
25
26
27
28
By: /s/ Erin R. Ranahan

Erin R. Ranahan
Andrew S. Jick
Kelly N. Oki
AXANAR PRODUCTIONS, INC.
and ALEC PETERS
20

Assigned To: Hon. R. Gary Klausner: D ' N M M D S

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Assigned To: Hon. R. Gary Klausner: D ' N M M D S

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Assigned To: Hon. R. Gary Klausner: D ' N M M D S

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:15-cv-09938-RGK-E Document 20 Filed 02/22/16 Page 1 of 29 Page ID #:69

Erin R. Ranahan (SBN: 235286)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. 2:15-cv-09938-RGK-E

March 21, 2016

Complaint Filed: December 29, 2015

Case 2:15-cv-09938-RGK-E Document 20 Filed 02/22/16 Page 2 of 29 Page ID #:70

TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:

In particular, Defendants seek an order striking the following allegations from

Axanar Motion Picture) from paragraph 2;

Motion Picture from paragraph 9;

The allegations contained in paragraphs 30 through 39;

The allegations contained in paragraphs 66 through 70; and

The allegations contained in paragraph 2 of the Prayer for Relief.

or at the time of hearing on this Motion.

This Motion is made following the

Case 2:15-cv-09938-RGK-E Document 20 Filed 02/22/16 Page 3 of 29 Page ID #:71

Dated: February 22, 2016

WINSTON & STRAWN LLP

By: /s/ Erin R. Ranahan

Case 2:15-cv-09938-RGK-E Document 20 Filed 02/22/16 Page 4 of 29 Page ID #:72

FACTUAL BACKGROUND .............................................................................. 1

The Parties .................................................................................................. 1

The Star Trek Copyrighted Works ......................................................... 2

The Short Mockumentary .......................................................................... 4

The Potential Fan Film ............................................................................... 4

Plaintiffs Specific Claims Against Defendants ........................................ 6

LEGAL STANDARD .......................................................................................... 6

Plaintiffs Claims Are Not Sufficiently Detailed To Survive .................... 7

Plaintiffs Complaint Fails to Meet Minimum Pleading

Plaintiffs Ownership Claims Are Implausible ............................. 11

Plaintiffs Claims Are Improperly Based Upon Allegations

Plaintiffs Claims Based on the Potential Fan Film Should Be

Plaintiffs Claims Based on the Potential Fan Film are

Enjoining the Potential Fan Film Would be a Prior Restraint ....... 19

Plaintiffs Have Failed to Allege Any Violation of Plaintiffs

Case 2:15-cv-09938-RGK-E Document 20 Filed 02/22/16 Page 5 of 29 Page ID #:73

A & M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.,

Case 2:15-cv-09938-RGK-E Document 20 Filed 02/22/16 Page 6 of 29 Page ID #:74

Four Navy Seals v. Associated Press,

Mintel Learning Tech., Inc. v. Beijing Kaidi Educ.,

Case 2:15-cv-09938-RGK-E Document 20 Filed 02/22/16 Page 7 of 29 Page ID #:75

Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,

Sierra Applied Scis., Inc. v. Advanced Energy Indus., Inc.,

UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Shelter Capital Partners LLC,

Case 2:15-cv-09938-RGK-E Document 20 Filed 02/22/16 Page 8 of 29 Page ID #:76

Veoh Networks, Inc. v. UMG Recordings, Inc.,

Zella v. E.W. Scripps Co.,

17 U.S.C. 101 ........................................................................................................ 20

17 U.S.C. 103(b) ..................................................................................................... 9

17 U.S.C. 504(c) ................................................................................................... 10

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 ..................................................................................................... 6, 8

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) ................................................................................................ 1, 7

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) ................................................................................................ 6

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) ......................................................................................... 1, 6

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) ................................................................................................. 13

Case 2:15-cv-09938-RGK-E Document 20 Filed 02/22/16 Page 9 of 29 Page ID #:77