Breaking news!!! Magistrate Judge rules in AXANAR’s favor regarding discovery!

Axaanr splash image2I don’t usually get breaking news as it happens, but Judge Magistrate Charles Eick just ruled on the Axanar defense team’s motion to have the court compel discovery (force the studios to deliver documents they were refusing to produce for the defense to look over before trial).

I was in court myself observing this morning, and I hadn’t expected the judge to rule so quickly.  But Judge Eick understood that, with only 12 days left until the close of the discovery period, the clock was ticking.

His ruling JUST came out, and I don’t even have the full text yet.  All I have is this summary:

On or before October 28, 2016, Plaintiffs shall…

  1. serve supplemental responses without objection, and produce all documents responsive to, the following requests (except documents withheld under claim of attorney-client privilege): 14, 35, 36, 37 (limited to the works allegedly infringed and also limited to documents (which may be summary documents) sufficient to show revenues and profitability), 17 (limited to 2009 to the present), 18 (limited to 2009 to the present), 21, 25 and 29;
  2. serve supplemental answers without objection to Interrogatories Nos. 8 and 9
  3. produce for deposition a witness or witnesses prepared to testify as to Deposition Testimony Subject No. 28;
  4. serve a privilege log identifying with particularity all documents withheld under claim of attorney- client privilege; and
  5. to the extent not otherwise ordered herein, fulfill all discovery-related promises previously made by Plaintiffs to Defendants.

In short, Axanar got pretty much everything they wanted and the studios are going to have a VERY busy week ahead.

Now, I’m going to need a couple of days to parse this all out and translate it from legalese into lay-person’s English.  So please be patient.  (During that time, I’ve also Jayden’s karate class, soccer practice, a friend’s birthday, a soccer game, and a birthday party for one of Jayden’s classmates.  And so this is why I don’t blog professionally.)

But short summary: big win for Axanar during the discovery phase.  The actual trial is completely separate, but for right now, the defense is going to have a very happy weekend.

73 thoughts on “Breaking news!!! Magistrate Judge rules in AXANAR’s favor regarding discovery!”

    1. One person posted that he just doesn’t care anymore, which is a huge about-face from his almost daily comments that continued as recently as a few days ago. And if you think about it, this was Axanar’s first win in the “tournament” so far. The studios drew first blood by having Judge Klausner deny defense pretrial motion to dismiss. That ruling emboldened many of the Axanar detractors to declare the case all but won. Of course, that’s incorrect–motions for dismissal are seldom granted, and yet the defense still manages to win many cases during trial or on appeal.

      So log this as a “win” for Axanar, but don’t uncork the champagne just yet! The trial hasn’t even begun, and we don’t know what documents and answers will be provided by the plaintiffs over the next several days. This win could be as meaningless and minor as the studio’s win when the judge denied the motion to dismiss. If you’re an Axanar supporter, sure, be happy. But don’t rub it in the noses of the other side just yet. Bad starma-karma!

      1. No Johnathan I do not care that much anymore because I have decided I am going to focus on positive things for the fandom and not what Axanar and Alec Peters has done to the Fan Productions out there.

        But you are right This! is not a win in the way you are painting it, You neglect to list all the tings that the defendants did not! get that they wanted, this is another reason why I have little to no time for you blog it misses massive chucks of relevant information out to spin its own narrative and that is not the honest way to do things.

        Yes everyone has a agenda but tbh as someone who is being touted as “the only place to see the facts” you sure dam do miss out a LOT!

          1. The defense was floored by how much they got! I left the courtroom worried that they’d get nothing. I was thinking, “Well, at minimum, at least they’ll get the privilege log. That’s something, right?” It sounded like this judge was going to be tough as nails. And ultimately, he was…just on the plaintiffs.

            Read my next blog post for a discussion of what Axanar did and didn’t get in the discovery judgement.

        1. Look, James, nobody likes to be wrong, so I can understand your reaction to all this. But you’re right in that there is still a full trial ahead (unless they settle, which is now a growing possibility…as I said it might be if the discovery phase didn’t go the way the studios hoped).

          As for all the things Axanar did NOT get, well, all I can say is that you are NOT going to enjoy my next blog about this (which I’m working on right now). In fact–and I say this with all respect and no snark whatsoever–you’ll probably be much happier if you DON’T read my next blog. It will be analyzing the defense strategy now that they got about 85% of what they asked for–and it was the important stuff. Things like all financial records dating back fifty years or the whole Star Wars fan films baloney were always pie-in-the-sky pawns meant to be sacrificed in order to save other pieces on the chess board. As others have said (and I agree with), the amount of money that Grace Lee Whitney was paid for seven episodes back in 1966 was never really relevant to revenues made in 2016.

          The original Star Trek has generated billions of dollars over the decades. Trying to determine the net versus gross of that number is folly. In fact, it actually serves the defense argument even better NOT to subtract expenses for production from all that revenue. Let’s say the studios somehow manage to convince the jury that Axanar cost the studios $500,000 in damages…an almost impossible claim to prove, I might add, but let’s assume they manage it. So the defense would then say that, over the decades, Star Trek has earned billions and billions of dollars (even the plaintiffs just acknowledged in court yesterday that the Star Trek revenue numbers are astronomical and almost impossible to calculate–and that might have been a mistake on their part).

          So when looked at proportionately, even a half million dollars of revenue loss is virtually unnoticeable by the studios. Compared to billions of dollars, $500K is a rounding error. On the other hand, Alec Peters is a private individual without a lot of money saved up. He just auctioned half his collection of props and costumes to keep his dream going. So the jury will be asked, if they find that Alec did, in fact, infringe, to determine a proportional judgment. The judgement can be based on one of two things–the amount he cost the studios (actual damages) plus the profit he made (profits), OR (not “and”) statutory damages. So you can see that the first one (damages plus profits) likely isn’t going to get the studios much, and the studios have already intimated that they’re more likely to pursue statutory damages anyway. So how much will those be?

          Well, it comes down to the whole willful versus non-willful determination that I’ve been discussing lately. Willful infringement can be an award of up to $150,000 per violation. Non-willful can be as little as $200 per violation. But what if it’s fuzzy? What if Alec knew he was infringing but had a reasonable expectation that the studios would look the other way as they did a hundred times before? In that case, according to the Nolo law website:

          For infringements that can’t clearly be proven as either innocent or willful, statutory damages may be from $750 to $30,000 per infringement depending on the circumstances. The amount will depend on the seriousness of the infringing act and the financial worth of the infringer.

          So how seriously did Axanar infringe on Star Trek? Well, if the studios didn’t tell YouTube to take down “Prelude,” then it can’t have been much of a red alert for them. So now it all rests on the financial worth of the infringer himself. So let’s hypothesize, just as an example, that the jury finds Alec guilty of 20 of the 57 alleged violations. The award could be as low as 20 x $750 = $30,000 or as high as 20 x $30,000 = $600,000. If Alec Peters is only worth $50-$100,000 at present (if that), then this information must, by law, be a factor in the jury’s and judge’s award in the verdict. In other words, don’t expect a judgment in the millions, James…unless you can somehow prove Alec does, in fact, have millions of dollars. stashed away (in which case, at least get a new car, man!).

          Anyway, as I’m sure you’ve seen from what I’ve just written, it is all based on very solid facts. I don’t think I’ve missed anything when it comes to the legal guidelines on how to determine awards in copyright infringement lawsuits. But if you do find I’ve missed something , James, please let me know so I can address it.

          But don’t read my next blog–half of this comment was taken directly from what I’ve written so far…and I’m guessing you won’t like this comment very much either. 🙂

    1. That quote (italicized) in the blog article was pretty much the meat of the ruling. After that came this:

      Except as expressly stated herein, the Motion is denied.

      Any party seeking review of this Order shall cause the preparation and filing of a transcript of the October 21, 2016 hearing.

      Hon. Charles F. Eick, Judge

      The “motion is denied” basically said that anything the judge didn’t list isn’t included. But he listed so much that the word “denied” seems almost laughable. He pretty much granted about 90% of what the defense wanted and denied the rest.

      1. Whatever.

        I’ll read the actual ruling, not a Crooked Hillary interpretation of it. No .pdf = no opinion.

          1. Yeah, go ahead. I can get it off Janet’s website, too. In the haste to get something posted on Friday before taking Jayden’ to karate, I didn’t have time to track down the PDF. All I had was the “meat” of the order that was e-mailed to me.

    2. You can get a copy of the if at Semantic and Janet always breaks it down FYI she’s an attorney and had the documents for and one who wants to download. For instance I didn’t know that Axanar didn’t get all the Financials they wanted only from 2009 and they were denied the salary information they wanted for the last 50 years.

      1. Yep, Janet is AWESOME! Definitely read her break-down before reading my upcoming analysis (’cause she missed a few things because she wasn’t in court on Friday morning, and I’ll be filling in a few of the blanks).

  1. Basically every and office document you need from C/P has to be produced. They have to do it in the time set as well. The down side it they could give more than need to slow down discovery of docs you need.
    I’m sure the demands are worded just right. If asking for email do request on servers and private off site as well as web mail sites and Cell phone message.
    The devil in the details of how you zask for things these days make or breaks a case.

      1. like a great man once said ” it ain’t over,til it’s over” and as a former hockey goalie we never use the word shut-out til the game is over…#istandwithaxanar

        1. A great man also once said, “Hey, where’s the damn bathroom in this place???” At least, I think it was a great man. It probably was. We all need a bathroom sometimes. 🙂

  2. This is standard procedure in a request for more information. Please don’t deceive your readers like you are currently doing it’s bad journalism.

    If you can’t do non biased reporting don’t report. WE know who’s side your NOT on and that’s a shame.

    1. I beg to differ, Charles. I got in touch with one of my legal consultants this afternoon to ask if this was a typical outcome for a motion to compel discovery. S/he said, “There’s no typical outcome. It all depends on which side the judge thinks is being a prick in the way they wrote their filings. Sometimes I get everything I want, other times I don’t. But I’m not surprised by this ruling. Both sides rolled the dice. The defense went after way too much, hoping that by asking for a mountain, they’d at least get a small hill. The plaintiffs took a chance that they could weasel out of having to produce most of what the defense was asking for. It was worth a shot, and some judges might have let them get away with some or most of what they wanted to withhold. But other judges will rule the other way, and as I said, I’m not surprised by this outcome. I doubt the plaintiffs’ lawyers are all that surprised either. Disappointed, maybe. But they had to know this was a big gamble to begin with.”

      1. The reality is that this is a typical move when more information is required. Even if the studios can’t prove any type of negative financial impact, it still doesn’t negate the fact that the Axanar teams has infringed on the studios IP. Which IS something that Alec Peters has admitted to on many occasions when he says “We violate IP Less Than Everyone Else”.

        Minimal court damage is $150k per IP violation and considering that Axanar is broke even one violation is more than the defendant can afford to pay.

        I find it quite interesting that you continue to portray the studios as the “Bad Guys” in all of this.

        The courts will rule in favor of the studios when all is said and done.

        1. Charles Baxter, stop being the judge and jury. You state “it still doesn’t negate the fact that the Axanar teams has infringed on the studios IP. Which IS something that Alec Peters has admitted to on many occasions when he says “We violate IP Less Than Everyone Else”.” That is rubbish. All it indicates is EVERYONE is thinking they probably violate their damn IP. The issue is, why have they not gone after THEM? Why go after the little one who has impacted their damn IP the least? That is the issue. This isn’t about their damn IP, it is about something else. People like you need to run back to your political parties, dig up some more dirt on the opponent, and continue to cover for your patron. Your studios ARE the BAD GUYS. They have taken something once considered a social icon, and converted it into a mere “money machine” about as bad as Disney suing the family of a 5 year old for not using an Officially licensed Micky Mouse costume on Halloween. Go back to you place under a desk and regenerate.

          1. Secure from general quarters, solider. We’re big enough to take a few insults. Heck, I’m big enough to need to get on the recumbent bike instead of writing all these blog posts! That said, Charles Baxter isn’t doing himself any favors when his best arguments are pointless insults. But you should learn from that, too, Brian. It’s why I don’t get down in the mud to wrestle with the pigs. I just get muddy, and the pigs kinda like it.

            By my estimates, the Axanar supporters outnumber the detractors by a (fan film) factor of about 9 or 10 to 1. And that’s despite the efforts of folks like Charles to use pithy zingers to convince the majority otherwise. That alone should tell you that insults don’t work. You had some good points to make in your last comment, Brian. Don’t cheapen them by getting nasty. We’re better than that, my friend. Charles isn’t.

          2. Brain Heite, I am not being the judge and jury. When someone admits to doing something, that’s exactly what it means. The reason the studios haven’t gone after everyone that violates their IP is because according to IP law they are NOT required to go after everyone. As far as Axanar violating their IP the least, what about the secret “Donor Store” that donors could get access to if they donated $10 on top of their original donation, which would give them access to exclusive model kits, t-shirts, books and other items which were all derived and violated the Studio’s IP. Star Trek was invented to be a money maker first and foremost, the fact that it has become a social icon is a testament to the high quality of work.

          3. Man, Charles, you started out so well, and then you crashed your bus into that whole secret “Donor Store” mishegoss. It’s irrelevant and not even mentioned anywhere in any of the filings. Do you have any solid legal arguments, or is it just what your gut or wandering train-of-thought is telling you? ‘Cause you need to understand that the 9th Circuit Court follows federal statues and not Charles Baxter’s gut feelings. That’s kinda why I’m writing these blogs to reference so many points of federal law. This isn’t just Jonathan’s gut feelings…although I do sprinkle in some opinions here and there and label them as such. But it’s hard to discuss or debate with you if I’m quoting law and you’re quoting, well, you.

      1. I find Jonathans reports very informative and largely unbiased. I think he tries to give everyone the benefit of the doubt and sees things positive, whereas “other” sites always try to find a negative spin on any news.

        1. Consider me the yin to the detractors’ yang. They have an illusion, while I have reality (or probably vice-versa from their perspective). May we all find our way as pleasant. 🙂

          1. Do you care to explain why the Defense hasn’t turned over all the e-mails as requested in discovery? I already know that they don’t have all of them (I have it confirmed from at least 3 different sources). Looks like things just got very bad for the defense.

          2. Man, I spent all day yesterday waiting to have the following IM session with one of my legal eagles, which s/he has given me permission to post here. I started with the growing rumor that Alec Peters hadn’t turned over all his e-mails in discovery and asked if that were something big and problematic…

            LE (legal eagle–I was not given permission to identify this person by name): Were the missing emails brought up in the motion?
            JON: No. I’m pretty much positive they weren’t…at least not by the plaintiffs. The defense brought up a lot of missing stuff.
            LE: I don’t care care what the defense said in the motion. It’s what the plaintiffs said.
            JON: Gotcha.
            LE: Were the alleged missing emails brought up in court?
            JON: One was. At the end of his presentation, Jonathan Zavin mentioned that a few years ago, CBS had sent Alec Peters an email about fan films and it wasn’t in the e-mails he provided to them.
            LE: So?
            JON: So…um, what?
            LE: Why is that a problem? He probably deleted it. That email’s been gone for years. He didn’t have it to give them.
            JON: Well, I don’t know that for certain.
            LE: Doesn’t matter. It’s not a big deal because they were the ones who sent it, so they already have it anyway.
            JON: But this is the scandal du jour of the Axahaters. They’re making quite a big deal of it.
            LE: That’s because they’re idiots.
            LE: Look, the purpose of a motion to compel discovery is to make the other party turn over everything that you want them to. That motion was filed, when? Like 3 weeks ago?
            JON: September 29.
            LE: Whatever it was. The point is that THAT was the time for the plaintiffs to bring it up. If they had a problem with your friend not turning over his e-mails, they would have said something in the filing. If they didn’t say anything, and I’m trusting you that they didn’t, then it’s a non issue. They had their chance to request more emails in the motion. They didn’t.
            LE: Did they ask for anything in court?
            JON: No, they just mentioned that there was this one missing e-mail. They didn’t say anything else about it.
            LE: Then they’re idiots, too. Did the judge say anything after they mentioned it?
            JON: Not according to my notes. That was the last thing Zavin said, and I think it was just, like, one sentence…maybe two. Then the judge asked if the defense had anything they wanted to say before he wrapped things up.
            LE: Then he didn’t care. The judge, I mean. By not responding and asking defense counsel to wrap up, what he was really saying was, “So what? Sit down and shut up. If this were really bothering you, you should have put it in the f-ing motion!” [NOTE FROM JON – S/he actually used the whole f-word, but I don’t like cussing on this site if I can avoid it.]
            JON: So you’re saying this is a non-story.
            LE: Completely. Look, each side gets one chance to ask the judge to order the other side to produce. If the plaintiffs didn’t do it, it’s too late now to make an issue out of it. Maybe your friend’s withholding, maybe he isn’t. Who knows? Plaintiffs counsel can’t bring it up again. Too late.
            JON: Okay. Got it.
            LE: Oh, you should also tell your readers that there’s an assumption when compelling discovery that only documents which exist can be produced. If Alec deleted any of his emails and there’s no backup anywhere, then the emails no longer exist and he isn’t expected to produce them. I’m sure the plaintiffs said the same thing about some of the discovery they were asked to produce. It happens. You can’t force either party to produce something that doesn’t exist.
            JON: Man, that’s a lot for me to summarize! Can I just copy/paste this whole IM session?
            LE: Yes. Just don’t identify me by name.
            JON: Will do, thanks.

            Take from that what you will, Charles. I’ve got a new blog to post.

          3. Charles, there’s an obvious question that is begged by this little tempest in a teapot you’ve brought up: If the defendants didn’t turn over some emails the plaintffs requested, why didn’t the plaintiffs file their OWN Motion? Why is this only being brought up after the motion was ruled on? Rather than it “looking bad for the defense”, it looks more like the plaintiffs are leaking stuff to Carlos (I know you didn’t confirm 3 sources, but took Carlos at his word that he had 3 confirmed sources) in an effort to save face.

          4. Actually, the plaintiffs wouldn’t have filed this own motion; they would have included that motion within the Joint Stipulation document. California rules say the magistrate judge must be given just one, single filing submitted jointly by both parties.

  3. I hope that the studio and CBS lose their case and I also hope that they are ordered to stop their so-called actions against the fans who are wanting to produce movies and shows based on STAR TREK!!!

  4. Jonathan, many thanks for your timely and informative Axanar report, which raises the spirits and hopes for an eventual successful outcome.

      1. She actually did a decent job of (kinda) calling it down the middle. When I did a breakdown of what was compelled vs. what wasn’t, what they did get is probably more important and relevant to the case than the items that weren’t. Granted, I’m not a lawyer, but I’m not stupid, either. All the stuff they got had to do with profits and market effect, all records they have on interactions with fan films for the last 7 years, all documents regarding guidelines (which means they should get the nitty gritty on what went down with Zicree back in 2008), all documents regarding any legal actions considered against fan films, documents regarding any decisions to issue DCMA takedowns for Prelude or the Vulcan Scene, documents and a person who can testify on what led to JJ Abrams statement back in May, and plaintiffs have to describe the harm or injury caused and what damages they are seeking. That’s a fairly hefty haul.

        What they didn’t get were revenues for all 50 years of Star Trek material, and all expenditures. They didn’t get general policies on how plaintiffs protect their IP, nor any documents regarding their take on Star Wars fan films.

        Quantitatively, the judge compelled more items than he rejected (of the 18 remaining items after plaintiffs produced the chain of custody documents, 11 were compelled). Qualitatively, the items compelled are potentially more useful to the defense than the items denied.

          1. You did a nice job there, Dave. I’m actually going in a slightly different direction with mine…just to be different! 🙂

            Some interesting stuff came out in the courtroom, but I might actually just post the transcript and let the words speak for themselves. And to be honest, I ain’t about to summarize two and a half hours worth of legalese!!!

          2. Oh, come on….I’m sure your wife will be happy to do that for you! 😉

            Seriously, though, I figured it would be more along the lines of a little extra flavoring here and there for your analysis of the judgement rather than a detailed blow-by-blow. If you’ve got a copy of the transcripts, could you send it my way (or tell me where I can download it)?

          3. I don’t have the transcripts yet, but they’ve been ordered. Not sure what the bureaucratic turnaround time is, though. It was a really fascinating two hours–made even more fascinating by the question of whether my bladder would burst by the start of the third hour! No one thought the proceedings would last more than an hour, maybe 90 minutes at most. But the judge was one part magistrate, four parts law professor, and six parts Louis Gossett, Jr. in “An Officer and a Gentleman” (just the old white guy version). Any little mistake made in the filing was cause for a lecture–and not a particularly nice one. Because Erin Ranahan went first, I watched her get skewered again and again and again and thought, “Oh, crap. We are sooooooo screwed!” But after 55 minutes of a beat-down, it was David Grossman’s (from Loeb and Loeb) turn to stand in front of the firing squad. Eick blasted him, too, and by the end of the proceedings, neither the lawyers nor I (we chatted briefly) had any idea what to expect. Erin did not leave that courtroom expecting a ruling barely four hours later…and certainly not a ruling like the one she got! I can only imagine the smile that spread across her face considering the grilling she got from the judge!

          4. That’s certainly an evocative description of Judge Eick! I hope for his sake Mr. Grossman never uttered the line, “How are you, Judge?”

  5. @JL: I just read the entry at semantic-s {} and I’m a little confused by one thing …

    “the ruling notes defense has withdrawn their Issue 3. This issue sought to compel discovery of chain of title documents for Star Trek. Because the plaintiffs complied prior to when the motion was heard and decided, it was withdrawn …”

    What does that mean ? Does it mean that the plaintiffs already complied on chain of title (if so, that’s big news … details pls, if available), or that they didn’t object to having to do so before the deadline, or that the defense is no longer asking them to prove same ?

    Cheers, and keep up the great reporting.

    1. It means the plaintiffs turned over the chain of custody documents after the motion was filed. I believe Jonathan covered this when the supplemental briefs were filed (that was when the defense withdrew the issue from the motion).

    2. So here’s what happened. The two sides agreed on what discovery documents each would ask the other for way back in June. And they agreed to deliver those documents by a date in, I think it was, late August. Axanar delivered about 33,000 pages of documents. The studios delivered about 1,100 pages…highly redacted. And Paramount itself delivered ZERO e-mails, despite a deposed witness from their studio admitting during deposition that such e-mails existed and the studio attorney agreeing to turn them over to the defense.

      And thus, you probably won’t be at all surprised to discover that, among the documents NOT turned over by the studios were Chain of Title…which could have been huge if it turned out that the studios did not, in fact, actually own Star Trek! What the studios did turn over was a list of copyright registrations made with the U.S. Copyright Office, but that’s not the same as Chain of Title. So it was still possible that the biggest bombshell remained out there, waiting to explode if only the defense could get to it.

      By mid-September, it was getting pretty late in the game. There were only about 6 or 7 weeks left in the discovery period, and once it ends on November 2, it ends. Both sides don’t have to turn over anything else. So with the clock ticking down, Winston & Strawn drew up a Motion to Compel Discovery that included all the stuff they still demanded from the studios. That motion was delivered to the studio lawyers at Loeb & Loeb who were required to add their responses to the document and then file the 60-page joint monstrosity with the magistrate court.

      Loeb & Loeb had possession of that joint document for about a week, composing their responses, before submitting it to the court. So they now knew what the defense was asking for. During that week, the studios “unexpectedly” delivered all of the Chain of Title documents to the defense. And thus, when they wrote up their response, the plaintiffs’ attorneys were able to say in their most humbly offended tone of voice that they couldn’t imagine why the defense was asking for Chain of Title when those documents were already delivered! (You’ll note that, in the defense supplemental memorandum, the Winston & Strawn folks mentioned that little tidbit that the plaintiffs conveniently left out: that the Chain of Title documents were delivered late, AFTER the defense had submitted their half of the motion to the plaintiffs and could no longer change it. So they dropped that item from their motion in the supplemental filing.)

      So was this a dirty trick by the plaintiffs? Possibly. Or maybe it was just that the plaintiffs forgot and the defense motion reminded them. Or maybe they realized that the defense was serious in trying to prove that the studios didn’t actually own Star Trek so they took a little extra time and dug Gene Roddenberry’s original contract with Desilu out of the vault. We’ll never know. But the off shot of this–the non-bombshell, if you will–is that, apparently, CBS does indeed own Star Trek.

      Now, it’s still possible that there was something wrong with the Chain of Title that the defense will bring up during trial, but I doubt it. Had there been a smoking gun on the Chain of Title, the defense would likely have filed an immediate motion for summary judgment with the court to have the case dismissed due to lack of standing on the part of the plaintiffs. Since that hasn’t happened, let’s assume that everything is kosher.

      So move along, folks, nothing to see here. 🙂

    3. Simply put the studio turned over proof of ownership about 3 weeks before the deadline. They had the information and had nothing to hide so they got it out of the way quickly.

      1. That they did, Charles. But you forgot to mention that the mutually-agreed upon deadline between the two parties (mid-August) has already passed weeks earlier. It’s a small but important point you left out, which is why I’m mentioning it.

          1. Well, kinda. Y’see, both sides worked very hard in their motions and in front of the judge to convince him that the other side was trying to pull a fast one. And that’s pretty typical. Some judges respond to that kind of thing. Others don’t. But just in case you have a judge who is more easily swayed, if the other side implies you’re trying to pull a fast one or are somehow incompetent–or at least mistake prone–you have to nip such rumors in the bud ASAP. If left to fester too long, false rumors can quickly turn into truths or prejudicial assumptions.

  6. Ya know… in a perfect world C/P would have possibly seen the merits of the production of Axanar and offered to help bring it all to fruition… maybe make a buck or two with distribution rights, everybody happy. Too many lawyers on retainer for that happen though. It’s unfortunate. I still hope we’ll actually get to see the finished product.

  7. What is “discovery” (I’ll assume your not talking about the new series) and it is a big win for Axanar as long as the film DOESN’T make profit shouldn’t it be fair play and if Paramount is worried about a fan film taken all their viewers, how about this, have them make the next film or series they’ve proved themselves just as JJ did so WHY NOT?

  8. @JL: Thank you for the detailed and informative answer on item 3 (chain of title). Keep up the great work.

Comments are closed.