Plaintiffs' Opposition To Motion Re Witness Fees
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View Plaintiffs' Opposition To Motion Re Witness Fees as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 450
- Pages: 3
Case 1:03-cv-11661-NG
Document 883
Filed 07/16/2009
Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS CAPITOL RECORDS, INC. et al., Plaintiffs, v. NOOR ALAUJAN,
Defendant.
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
) SONY BMG MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT ) et al., Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) JOEL TENENBAUM, ) ) Defendants. ) )
Civ. Act. No. 03-cv-11661-NG (LEAD DOCKET NUMBER)
Civ. Act. No 07-cv-11446-NG (ORIGINAL DOCKET NUMBER)
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO WAIVE WITNESS FEES, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR THE COURT TO CALL WITNESSES PURSUANT TO FED. R. EVID. 614(a) Plaintiffs hereby oppose Defendant’s Motion to Waive Witness Fees, or in the Alternative, for the Court to Call Witnesses. Plaintiffs do not intend to call Mr. Sherman or Mr. Glazer as witnesses in this matter. Furthermore, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b)(2), a subpoena may be served within the district of the issuing court or outside that district but within 100 miles of the place specified for the trial. Both of the witnesses sought by Defendant reside outside of the District of Massachusetts, and cannot be reached by a subpoena under these rules. For the same reason, it would be improper for the Court to call these witnesses pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 614(a). Finally, even if a subpoena served on these witnesses were proper under the Rules – and it would not be – Defendant has put forward no evidence that he is indigent or otherwise cannot
Case 1:03-cv-11661-NG
Document 883
Filed 07/16/2009
Page 2 of 3
afford to pay the fees associated with the issuance of a subpoena. Absent such a showing, Defendant should be required to comply with the requirements of the Federal Rules.
Respectfully submitted, SONY BMG MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT; WARNER BROS. RECORDS, INC.; ATLANTIC RECORDING CORPORATION; ARISTA RECORDS, LLC; AND UMG RECORDINGS, INC. By their attorneys, /s/ Daniel J. Cloherty Daniel J. Cloherty, Esq. Dwyer & Collora LLP 600 Atlantic Ave., 12th Floor Boston, MA 02210 617-371-1000 Timothy M. Reynolds (pro hac vice) Eve G. Burton (pro hac vice) Laurie J. Rust (pro hac vice) Holme Roberts & Owen, LLP 1700 Lincoln, Suite 4100 Denver, CO 80203 303-861-7000 Matthew J. Oppenheim (pro hac vice) Oppenheim Group 7304 River Falls Drive Potomac, Maryland 20854 Telephone: (301) 299-4986 Facsimile: (866) 766-1678 Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs Dated: July 16, 2009
2
Case 1:03-cv-11661-NG
Document 883
Filed 07/16/2009
Page 3 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that this document filed through the ECF system will be sent electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) and paper copies will be sent to those indicated as non-registered participants on July 16, 2009. /s/ Daniel J. Cloherty
3
Document 883
Filed 07/16/2009
Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS CAPITOL RECORDS, INC. et al., Plaintiffs, v. NOOR ALAUJAN,
Defendant.
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
) SONY BMG MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT ) et al., Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) JOEL TENENBAUM, ) ) Defendants. ) )
Civ. Act. No. 03-cv-11661-NG (LEAD DOCKET NUMBER)
Civ. Act. No 07-cv-11446-NG (ORIGINAL DOCKET NUMBER)
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO WAIVE WITNESS FEES, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR THE COURT TO CALL WITNESSES PURSUANT TO FED. R. EVID. 614(a) Plaintiffs hereby oppose Defendant’s Motion to Waive Witness Fees, or in the Alternative, for the Court to Call Witnesses. Plaintiffs do not intend to call Mr. Sherman or Mr. Glazer as witnesses in this matter. Furthermore, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b)(2), a subpoena may be served within the district of the issuing court or outside that district but within 100 miles of the place specified for the trial. Both of the witnesses sought by Defendant reside outside of the District of Massachusetts, and cannot be reached by a subpoena under these rules. For the same reason, it would be improper for the Court to call these witnesses pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 614(a). Finally, even if a subpoena served on these witnesses were proper under the Rules – and it would not be – Defendant has put forward no evidence that he is indigent or otherwise cannot
Case 1:03-cv-11661-NG
Document 883
Filed 07/16/2009
Page 2 of 3
afford to pay the fees associated with the issuance of a subpoena. Absent such a showing, Defendant should be required to comply with the requirements of the Federal Rules.
Respectfully submitted, SONY BMG MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT; WARNER BROS. RECORDS, INC.; ATLANTIC RECORDING CORPORATION; ARISTA RECORDS, LLC; AND UMG RECORDINGS, INC. By their attorneys, /s/ Daniel J. Cloherty Daniel J. Cloherty, Esq. Dwyer & Collora LLP 600 Atlantic Ave., 12th Floor Boston, MA 02210 617-371-1000 Timothy M. Reynolds (pro hac vice) Eve G. Burton (pro hac vice) Laurie J. Rust (pro hac vice) Holme Roberts & Owen, LLP 1700 Lincoln, Suite 4100 Denver, CO 80203 303-861-7000 Matthew J. Oppenheim (pro hac vice) Oppenheim Group 7304 River Falls Drive Potomac, Maryland 20854 Telephone: (301) 299-4986 Facsimile: (866) 766-1678 Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs Dated: July 16, 2009
2
Case 1:03-cv-11661-NG
Document 883
Filed 07/16/2009
Page 3 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that this document filed through the ECF system will be sent electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) and paper copies will be sent to those indicated as non-registered participants on July 16, 2009. /s/ Daniel J. Cloherty
3
Related Documents
Plaintiffs Opposition To Motion Re Exhibit 4
May 2020 3
