18
Ronnie Van Zant, Inc. v. Pyle 2017 WL 3721777 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) United States District Court, S.D. New York. RONNIE VAN ZANT, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. Artimus PYLE, et al., Defendants. 17 Civ. 3360 (RWS) Signed August 23, 2017 Filed 08/28/2017 Attorneys and Law Firms Attorneys for Plaintiffs, OTTERBOURG P.C., 230 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10169, By: Richard G. Haddad, Esq., Sandor Frankel, Esq. , Pauline McTernan, Esq. Attorneys for Defendants Cleopatra Records, Inc. and Cleopatra Films, MANDEL BHANDARI LLP, 80 Pine Street, 33rd Floor, New York, NY 10005, By: Evan Mandel, Esq., Robert Glunt, Esq. Attorney for Defendant Artimus Pyle, Defendant, pro se, Artimus Pyle, 103 Kennedy Street, Black Mountain, NC 28711 OPINION AND ORDER Sweet, D.J. *1 This action was tried before the Court between July 11 and July 12, 2017. Based upon all the prior proceedings, the findings of fact, and conclusions set forth below, judgment will be entered in favor of Plaintiffs Ronnie Van Zant, Inc., Gary R. Rossington (“Rossington”), Johnny Van Zant, Barbara Houston, as the Trustee of the Allen Collins Trust, and Alicia Rapp and Carinna Gaines Biemiller, as the personal representatives of the estate of Steven Gaines (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”), granting a permanent injunction against Defendants Cleopatra Records, Inc. (“Cleopatra Records”), and Cleopatra Films (together with Cleopatra Records, “Cleopatra”) and award of costs and attorneys' fees against Cleopatra and Artimus Pyle (“Pyle,” and together with Cleopatra, the “Defendants”). In addition, Plaintiffs' motion for an adverse inference is granted, and Cleopatra's motions for summary judgment and judgment as a matter of law are dismissed as moot. Findings of Fact I. Lynyrd Skynyrd and 1977 Plane Crash Lynyrd Skynyrd was a rock band formed in Jacksonville, Florida in the 1960s. (Tr. 8:4–19.[1] ) The band's founding members were Ronnie Van Zant (“Van Zant”), Rossington, and Allen Collins (“Collins”). (Tr. 8:20–22, 69:25–70:1.) Pyle joined as the band's drummer in 1975. (Tr. 11:4–7, 70:2–6.) During the 1970s, Lynyrd Skynyrd became a popular band, selling millions of albums and writing classic songs such as “Sweet Home Alabama” and “Free Bird.” (Tr. 10:2–11:2.) During this period, Van Zant was the band's lead singer and primary songwriter. (Tr. 11:12–24.) The band's final album, entitled “Street Survivor,” was released in 1977. (Tr. 10:16–22.) On October 20, 1977, the plane in which the band and its support team were traveling crashed in Mississippi. (Tr. 12:4–12.) As a result of the plane crash, Van Zant, Gaines, Gaines' sister, a member of the support crew, and the plane's two pilots died. (Tr. 12:4–13:2.) The remainder of the plane's passengers, including Rossington and Pyle, were critically injured but survived. (Tr. 14:9–21.) In the aftermath of the crash, Rossington, Collins, and Van Zant's widow, now Judy Van Zant Jenness (“Jenness”), entered into what has since been termed a “blood oath,” under which the three of them decided that no one would ever perform as Lynyrd Skynyrd again. (Tr. 15:4–24.) Gaines' widow, now Teresa Gaines Rapp (“Rapp”), and band keyboardist Billy Powell also witnessed the blood oath. (Tr. 15:14–17.) For ten years, former band members performed with other bands and under other band names, but no performances took place under the name “Lynyrd Skynyrd.” (Tr.15:25–16:6.) 1 of 18

Artimus PYLE, et al., Defendants. v. RONNIE VAN ZANT, INC ... · the name ‘Lynyrd Skynyrd’ is followed immediately thereafter by, and includes, the calendar year at the time of

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

RonnieVanZant,Inc.v.Pyle2017WL3721777(S.D.N.Y.2017)

UnitedStatesDistrictCourt,S.D.NewYork.

RONNIEVANZANT,INC.,etal.,Plaintiffs,v.

ArtimusPYLE,etal.,Defendants.17Civ.3360(RWS)

SignedAugust23,2017

Filed08/28/2017

AttorneysandLawFirms

AttorneysforPlaintiffs,OTTERBOURGP.C.,230ParkAvenue,NewYork,NY10169,By:RichardG.Haddad,Esq.,SandorFrankel,Esq.,PaulineMcTernan,Esq.

AttorneysforDefendantsCleopatraRecords,Inc.andCleopatraFilms,MANDELBHANDARILLP,80PineStreet,33rdFloor,NewYork,NY10005,By:EvanMandel,Esq.,RobertGlunt,Esq.

AttorneyforDefendantArtimusPyle,Defendant,prose,ArtimusPyle,103KennedyStreet,BlackMountain,NC28711

OPINIONANDORDER

Sweet,D.J.

*1ThisactionwastriedbeforetheCourtbetweenJuly11andJuly12,2017.Baseduponallthepriorproceedings,thefindingsoffact,andconclusionssetforthbelow,judgmentwillbeenteredinfavorofPlaintiffsRonnieVanZant,Inc.,GaryR.Rossington(“Rossington”),JohnnyVanZant,BarbaraHouston,astheTrusteeoftheAllenCollinsTrust,andAliciaRappandCarinnaGainesBiemiller,asthepersonalrepresentativesoftheestateofStevenGaines(collectively,the“Plaintiffs”),grantingapermanentinjunctionagainstDefendantsCleopatraRecords,Inc.(“CleopatraRecords”),andCleopatraFilms(togetherwithCleopatraRecords,“Cleopatra”)andawardofcostsandattorneys'feesagainstCleopatraandArtimusPyle(“Pyle,”andtogetherwithCleopatra,the“Defendants”).Inaddition,Plaintiffs'motionforanadverseinferenceisgranted,andCleopatra'smotionsforsummaryjudgmentandjudgmentasamatteroflawaredismissedasmoot.

FindingsofFact

I.LynyrdSkynyrdand1977PlaneCrash

LynyrdSkynyrdwasarockbandformedinJacksonville,Floridainthe1960s.(Tr.8:4–19.[1])Theband'sfoundingmemberswereRonnieVanZant(“VanZant”),Rossington,andAllenCollins(“Collins”).(Tr.8:20–22,69:25–70:1.)Pylejoinedastheband'sdrummerin1975.(Tr.11:4–7,70:2–6.)Duringthe1970s,LynyrdSkynyrdbecameapopularband,sellingmillionsofalbumsandwritingclassicsongssuchas“SweetHomeAlabama”and“FreeBird.”(Tr.10:2–11:2.)Duringthisperiod,VanZantwastheband'sleadsingerandprimarysongwriter.(Tr.11:12–24.)Theband'sfinalalbum,entitled“StreetSurvivor,”wasreleasedin1977.(Tr.10:16–22.)

OnOctober20,1977,theplaneinwhichthebandanditssupportteamweretravelingcrashedinMississippi.(Tr.12:4–12.)Asaresultoftheplanecrash,VanZant,Gaines,Gaines'sister,amemberofthesupportcrew,andtheplane'stwopilotsdied.(Tr.12:4–13:2.)Theremainderoftheplane'spassengers,includingRossingtonandPyle,werecriticallyinjuredbutsurvived.(Tr.14:9–21.)

Intheaftermathofthecrash,Rossington,Collins,andVanZant'swidow,nowJudyVanZantJenness(“Jenness”),enteredintowhathassincebeentermeda“bloodoath,”underwhichthethreeofthemdecidedthatnoonewouldeverperformasLynyrdSkynyrdagain.(Tr.15:4–24.)Gaines'widow,nowTeresaGainesRapp(“Rapp”),andbandkeyboardistBillyPowellalsowitnessedthebloodoath.(Tr.15:14–17.)Fortenyears,formerbandmembersperformedwithotherbandsandunderotherbandnames,butnoperformancestookplaceunderthename“LynyrdSkynyrd.”(Tr.15:25–16:6.)

1of18

II.1988ActionandConsentOrder

In1987,tocommemoratetheten-yearanniversaryofthecrash,theband'ssurvivingmembersreunitedforatributetourtoLynyrdSkynyrd.(Tr.16:7–18.)JennessandthebandmembersonthetributetourdisputedtheuseoftheLynyrdSkynyrdname,whichculminatedinalawsuit,Grondinetano.v.Rossingtonetal.,690F.Supp.200,inwhichJennesssoughttoenjointheuseoftheband'snameinperformance(the“1988Action”).(Tr.16:23–17:15.)OnOctober11,1988,the1988Actionwasresolvedbytheparties'entryintoaConsentOrder,Judgment,andDecree(the“ConsentOrder,”Pls.'Ex.1).(Tr.17:19–18:13.)Pyle,adefendantin1988ActionandwhowasrepresentedbycounselthroughoutthelawsuitandduringthesigningoftheConsentOrder,wasoneoftheConsentOrder'ssignatories;hedescribedtheaftermathoftheConsentOrderaseveryone“onthesamepage”andeverythingwas“copacetic,”althoughhealsonotatedadjacenttohissignatureontheConsentOrderthewords“UnderProtest.”(ConsentOrder,at30;DepositionTranscriptofArtemisPyledatedJune20,2017(“PyleDep.”)25:8–15,29:2–21,30:10–23,34:13–16.)

*2TheConsentOrdersetforth,amongstmanythings,restrictionsastohowthepartiesinthe1988ActioncouldusethenameLynyrdSkynyrd,thename,imagesandlikenessofVanZantandGaines,orthehistoryofLynyrdSkynyrd.Asrelevanttotheinstantlitigation,theConsentOrdercontainedthefollowingprovisions:

•“[A]llcorporationsownedorcontrolledby[anyofthepartiesinthe1988Action],andallagents,attorneys,employees,officers,directors,successors,assigns,andallothersinconcertorparticipationwiththem,areherebyjointlyandseverallypermanentlyrestrainedandpermanentlyenjoinedfromdoinganyofthefollowing:

•“Usingorpurportingtoauthorizetheuseofthename‘LynyrdSkynyrd’oranylogos,tradeorservicemarksassociatedwiththename‘LynyrdSkynyrd,’intheentertainmentindustryorotherwise,exceptasspecificallyauthorizedherein;”(ConsentOrder1(ii))

•“Usingthename,likeness,portrait,picture,performancesorbiographicalmaterialofRonnieVanZant...orStevenGaines...foranypurposewhatsoever,exceptasspecificallyauthorizedherein.”(Id.1(iii).)

•“[The1988Actionparties]shallhavetherighttousethewords‘LynyrdSkynyrd’aspartofaname...Whenthename‘LynyrdSkynyrd’isfollowedimmediatelythereafterby,andincludes,thecalendaryearatthetimeofsuchuse....Thecalendaryearshallnotbeincludedinparenthesesandshallbeofasize,type,andprominenceequalinallrespectstothewords‘LynyrdSkynyrd.’”(Id.2(a)(the“DateRequirement”).)

•Forpurposesoflivemusicalperformances,eitherbothRossingtonandCollinsmustappearonstagetogetherasactiveplayersforsubstantiallytheentiredurationoftheliveperformance,orRossingtonorCollinsmustappearalongwithtwoofthefollowingfourmusicians:Pyle,LeonWilkeson,BillyPowell,orEdKing.(Id.2(c)(the“RuleofThree”).)

•“Eachofthe[1988Actionparties]shallhavetherighttoexploithis(orwithrespecttotheEstates,theapplicabledecedent's)ownrespectivelifestoryinanymannerormedium,includingwithoutlimitation,inbooksorotherprintpublicationsandintheatricalfeatureortelevisionmotionpicture,withoutobligation,financialorotherwise,toanyotherpartyhereto.Insuchconnection,eachoftheforegoingshallhavetherighttoreferto‘LynyrdSkynyrd’andrelatedmattersandtodescribeandportrayhisexperience(s)with‘LynyrdSkynyrd,’providedthatnosuchexploitationoflifestaterightsisauthorizedwhichpurposetobeahistoryofthe‘LynyrdSkynyrd’band,asopposedtothelifestoryoftheapplicableindividual.”(Id.3.)

•“ThereshallbenoexploitationinwholeorinpartofthehistoryoftheLynyrdSkynyrdbandwithoutthepriorwrittenapprovalofRossington,Collinsand[VanZant's]Estate.IntheeventRossingtonorCollinsdiesorisincapacitated,hisrespectiveestateorotherlegalrepresentativeshallbeentitledtoexercisetheapprovalrightsgrantedpursuantto[thisparagraph.]”(Id.4.)

•“No[defendantinthe1988Action]shallmakeanyuseofthename,likeness,portrait,picture,orbiographicalmaterialorVanZantorofGainesexceptpursuantto[certainenumeratedconditions,suchasrecordmerchandisingandparticulartributetours].”(Id.5.)

*3•“[Defendantsinthe1988Action]shallnotbeinviolationofthisOrderifathirdpartyfailstocomplywiththetermshereincontained;providedthat,uponlearningofeachsuchfailure,the[1988Actiondefendants]immediatelynotify[the1988Actionplaintiffs]and...immediatelynotifysuchthirdpartyoftheapplicabletermshereofanddemandpromptcompliancewithallsuchterms.Innoeventshallthe[1988Actiondefendants]implicitlyorthroughinactionauthorizetheviolationofthetermshereofbyanythirdparty.”(Id.26.)

•“ThisCourtshallretainjurisdictionoverthisactionandoverthepartiesforthepurposeofenforcingthe2of18

provisionshereof.”(Id.33.)

•“Anamountequaltoactualandreasonableattorneys[sic]feesshallbeawardtotheprevailingpartyinanyproceedingbroughttoenforcethetermsandconditionsofthisOrder.”(Id.34.)

•“ThepartiesheretomayunanimouslyagreetoamendtheirrespectiverightsandobligationspursuanttothisOrder,withoutseekingfurtherinterventionoftheCourt,providedsuchshallbeinawritingsignedbyallparties.”(Id.37.)

•Provisionscontainingformulasdetailingtherespectiveparties'rightstoroyaltiesfromLynyrdSkynyrdmusic,merchandise,andotherproceeds.(Seeid.10–12,14–16,21.)

III.ConsentOrderAftermath

FollowingtheConsentOrder,thesurvivingmembersofLynyrdSkynyrd,includingPyle,continuedtoperformunderthe“LynyrdSkynyrd”name.(Tr.19:8–18;PyleDep.34:3–24,41:23–43:3,104:18–105:16.)PyleceasedperformingwiththesurvivingLynyrdSkynyrdbandin1991,atwhichpointhesignedaterminationagreement.(Tr.19:19–25;PyleDep.35:21–37:24;seePls.'Ex.61.)

WhiletheconditionsoftheConsentOrderweretodistinguishbetweenthepre-crashandpost-crashbandandavoidconfusingthefans,noteveryprovisionhasbeenconsistentlyfollowedsince1988.(Tr.24:16–19.)Sincearound1992,thebandhasperformedusingthenameLynyrdSkynyrdbutnotinaccordancewiththeDateRequirementprovisionoftheConsentOrder,aprovisionthatstoppedbeingfollowedafterthestill-performingbandmembersaskedJennessandRappforpermission,towhichtheyacquiesced.(Tr.24:20–25:5,54:3–56:17.)TheRuleofThreehasnotbeenfollowedsinceCollins'deathintheearly1990s,arequirementmademoredifficultwiththesubsequentdeathsofLeonWilkesonandBillyPowellanddeparturesofPyleandEdKing.(Tr.22:4–23:5.)Inlightofthesefacts,JennessandtheremainingbandmembersagreedthattheRuleofThreerequirementwouldbesatisfiedbythepresenceofRossington.(Tr.23:6–12.)Royaltypaymentshavealsobeenmodifiedovertheyears.(Tr.53:1–3.)

ThesemodificationswereneitherexecutedbyagreementbetweentheConsentOrderpartiesnorsoughtfromtheCourt.(Tr.49:6–14.)Totheextentthatmodificationswereobjectedto,suchobjectionswereresolved.(Tr.87:18–22,98:13–15.)IntheyearsfollowingtheConsentOrder,PylehasneverobjectedtoortakenactionbasedonmodificationsmadetothetermsoftheConsentOrder,andhascontinuedtoreceiveroyaltypayments.(Tr.23:15–17,25:12–17;PyleDep.34:22–24,41:23–43:3,65:1–23;104:18–105:16.)Overtheyears,PlaintiffshaveperiodicallybroughtinjunctionsuitsagainstConsentOrdersignatories,includingPyle,andthirdpartiesatactualorperceivedbreachesoftheConsentOrder'sstrictures.(Tr.25:18–27:10,97:24–98:12;seePls.'Exs.2–6.)

IV.Cleopatra'sFilm

CleopatraRecordsisaLosAngeles-basedindependentrecordlabelfoundedin1992.(Tr.115:4–19;DepositionofBrianPereradatedJune9,2017(“PereraDep.”)8:21–22.)CleopatraRecordshasafilmcomponentthat,untilaround2016,wasrunthroughanaffiliatedivision,CleopatraFilms[2],andtodayisrunthroughanaffiliatebusiness,CleopatraEntertainmentLLC,whichBrianPerera(“Perera”),founder,president,andco-ownerofCleopatraRecords,alsooperateswiththesameemployeesandoutofthesameoffice.[3](PereraDep.9:10–14,9:18–25,13:19–14:8;Tr.118:14–16;seeTr.145:24–146:1(describingthe“Cleopatraentities”ashavingpaidforthe“planecrashfilm”).)

*4Inearly2016,Cleopatradecidedtopursuemakingafeature-lengthfilmbasedonthe1977LynyrdSkynyrdplanecrash(the“Film”).[4](Tr.119:1–20.)Aroundthattime,PererahiredJaredCohn(“Cohn”),adirectorandscreenwriter,toworkonwritinganddirectingtheproposedFilm.(PereraDep.7:22–25;Tr.131:8–132:3;Defs.'Ex.805.)CohnwaspaidbyCleopatraandreportedtoPererabutwasnotaCleopatraemployee.(Tr.180:16–21;DepositionofJaredCohndatedJune26,2017(“CohnDep.”)31:16–21.)Aroundthesametime,PererareachedoutandmetwithPyleinNashville,TN,todiscusstheproject;PyleexpressedinterestintheFilm,althoughtherewasnodiscussionastoPyle'srole,ifany,init.(Tr.121:6–123:18.)

InJune2016,CleopatrapaidPyletoflyouttoLosAngelestodiscusshisinvolvementwiththeFilm.(Tr.123:19–25,124:12–22;PereraDep.42:13–43:15,44:24–45:2.)EmailsbetweenPerera,Cohn,andTimYasui(“Yasui”),Cleopatra'svicepresident,establishthatPylewasbeingbroughtintoworkonthescriptwithCohn,(Pls.'Ex.15),takepublicityphotos,(Pls.'Ex.17),andgetvideorecordingsofPylefromwhichtocreatetheFilm'sscreenplay,(Pls.'Ex.16).

OnJune7,2016,whilemeetinginLosAngeles,PylesignedanagreementwithCleopatrathatentitledhimto

3of18

5%oftheFilm'snetreceipts,whichwouldbe“basedonthestoryofLynyrdSkynyrd's1977planecrashandtheeventsurroundingit,”onwhichhewouldreceivea“Consultant”or“Co–Producer”credit;PylealsocontractedtonarratetheFilm,makeacameoappearanceintheFilm,andcontributeanoriginalsongtotheFilm.(SeeDefs.'Ex.9.)Duringthismeeting,PyledidnottellPereraabouttheConsentOrder,butdidinformhimofthelitigioushistorybetweenthosehistoricallyconnectedtoLynyrdSkynyrdandthat,shouldPyle'sinvolvementwiththeFilmimperilitsproduction,Pylewould“rip...up”thecontract.[5](Tr.128:12;seealsoTr.128:7–19;PereraDep.49:17–21,50:2–51:18,64:14–18,150:13–151:12.)WhilePylewasinLosAngeles,Cohninterviewedandvideo-recordedPyleforelevenhours.(Tr.142:23–143:6;CohnDep.42:24–43:2.)AroundtheendofJune2016,CleopatraputoutpressreleasesadvertisingPyle'sinvolvementasaco-writerandco-produceroftheFilm.(SeePls.'Exs.49–50.)

V.Plaintiffs'CeaseandDesistLetter

OnJuly15,2016,PlaintiffssentCleopatraaceaseanddesistletterafterlearningthroughnewsarticlesthatCleopatraintendedtoproduceamoviebeingco-writtenbyCohnandPyleentitled“FreeBird”aboutLynyrdSkynyrdandthe1977planecrash.[6](SeePls.'Exs.7–8;Defs.'Exs.1,55;Tr.27:11–29:17.)Intheletter,PlaintiffsrequestedacopyoftheFilm'sscriptandnotedvariousrestrictionsbasedontermsoftheConsentOrder.(SeePls.'Ex.7.)OnJuly19,2017,CleopatrarequestedacopyoftheConsentOrderanddeclareditsFirstAmendmentrighttomakeitsfilm.(Defs.'Exs.2–3.)OnJuly22,2016,PlaintiffsmailedCleopatraacopyoftheConsentOrder,whichCleopatrareceivedshortlythereafter.[7](Tr.134:8–15,160:9–11;Defs.'Ex.4;Pls.'Ex.9.)Perera,Cohn,andCleopatra'scounsel,EvanCohen(“Cohen”),readanddiscussedtheConsentOrder.[8](CohnDep.13:17–23,14:16–15:3,16:13–22,17:12–21;PereraDep.108:22–110:15.)

*5OnAugust5,2016,Cohn,inconsultationwithPerera,messagedJennessoverFacebookandinvitedhertoLosAngelesto“talkaboutthemovieproject”;thegoalwastodetermineawaytoaddresstheceaseanddesistletterCleopatrahadreceived.(Pls.'Ex.10;seeTr.31:2–33:1,62:21–63:16,89:18–20,134:25–135:13;CohnDep.99:7–9,99:13–19,104:5–13.)JennessrespondedbyFacebookmessageandrequestedCleopatrato“sendanemailexplainingandoutlining[Cleopatra's]plansandhow[Cleopatra]see[s]itinvolving[her].”(Pls.'Ex.10.)AfterconferringwithCohen,Cleopatrachosenottorespond.(Tr.135:21–136:4;221:1–223:25.)NeitherJenness,Rossington,norCollins'estatediscussedtheFilmfurtherwithCleopatra.(Tr.46:6–10,91:22–25.)

VI.Cleopatra'sFilmProductionPost–CeaseandDesist

Followingreceiptoftheceaseanddesistletter,CleopatracontinuedtoworkonproducingitsFilm,butstoppedpublicallyreferringtoPyleasawriterorproduceroftheFilm.(Tr.141:16–142:4.)Foralmostthenextyear,CohnwroteoveradozendraftsoftheFilm'sscript.(SeeDefs.'Exs.301–317.)EvidenceadducedestablishedthatCleopatrainvolvedPyleinmanyaspectsofitsFilmproductionprocess,althoughPyleneitherdidanyoftheactualscriptwritingnorhadfinalcontrolovertheFilm'scontent,whichismaintainedbyCleopatra.(SeeTr.139:9–10,146:13–147:25;PyleDep.88:19–21.)

PyleregularlytextedorcalledCohntorelayhistoricalinformation,sometimesdirectly,sometimesthroughintermediariesatCleopatra,whichCohnwouldincorporateintohiswrittenwork.[9](SeePls.'Exs.20,22,25,26;CohnDep.22:8–22,43:25–44:9).AroundAugust8,2016,PylereceivedacopyofCohn'sfifteenpageoutlinefortheFilm,whichPylereviewedandoffered“minor”comments,(Pls.'Ex.22;seePls.'Ex.23;CohnDep.63:16–64:14),andreceivedcopiesoftheFilm'sscriptinSeptember,October,andNovember2016,(seePls.'Exs.27,28,30;Tr.169:3–6).PylediscussedhisnotesandrevisionswithCohnonatleastsomeofthesedrafts.(SeePls.'Exs.29,31,32;Tr.197:9–24.)Cohn'sscriptdraftscontinuedtoincorporatefeedbackfromPylethroughearly2017andtheFilm'sfilming.[10](SeePls.'Ex.34;Tr.200:15–20;CohnDep.46:17–48:7.)

CleopatrasolicitedPyle'sviewsoncastingandcostumesaswell.AroundFebruary2017,duringtheFilm'scastingandactorauditions,Pyleprovidednotesandthoughts,whichCohnviewedas“helpful.”(Pls.'Ex.34;seealsoPls.'Exs.33,35;Tr.204:15–23;CohnDep.49:20–50:10.)InMarch2017,PylediscussedcostumingselectionswiththeFilm'scostumedesigner.(SeePls.'Exs.37,38;Tr.212:16–18;CohnDep.48:11–15.)InApril2017,CleopatrapaidforPyletoflytoLosAngelestoparticipateinatablereadwithactorsselectedfortheFilm,duringandafterwhichPyleprovidedfeedbackontheaccuracyoftheportrayals,feedbackwhichCohnincorporatedintotheFilm'sscript.(SeePls.'Exs.39–41;Tr.214:23–215:11;PyleDep.81:6–83:6;CohnDep.58:12–59:21.)

PylehasalsoprovidedvideofootageforacameoappearanceinCleopatra'sFilmandworkedonoriginalmusicfortheFilm'ssoundtrack.(SeeTr.201:4–10,216:10–25;CohnTr.60:18–24;PyleDep.76:19–25,

4of18

77:6–12.)

VII.Cleopatra'sFilm

*6TheFilm'sfinalscriptfocusesprincipallyonPyle,hisrelationshipwiththeLynyrdSkynyrdbandmembers,particularlyVanZant,andeventsduringandimmediatelyfollowingthe1977planecrash.(SeegenerallyPls.'Ex.13.)Thescriptbroadlyincludes:scenesofthebandperformingataconcertandplayingwell-knownLynyrdSkynyrdsongs,(seeid.,atP000051–56);post-concertandgeneralscenesofthebandcavorting,(seeid.,atP000056–69,81–84);flashbackstowhenPylefirstmetandjoinedtheband,(seeid.,atP000084–91);andscenesjustbefore,during,andshortlyaftertheband'splanecrash,(seeid.,atP000070–81,91–155).AsPylesummarizedit,theFilm“wasacompressionof—ofourlifeasaband.”(PyleDep.103:16–17;seealsoTr.227:4–6(notingthattheFilmisnota“lifestory”).)

PyleisthemaincharacteroftheFilm,althoughVanZanthasmuchofthedialogueandtheremainingbandmembers,includingGainesandRossington,arefeaturedandhavedialogue.(SeegenerallyPls.'Ex.13.)Portionsofthescriptarehistoricallyinaccurate,eitherbecausethechronologyofeventsdepictedisincorrect,suchasinstancesofVanZant'sinfidelityorasceneofVanZantbreakingaglassbottleoveraperson'sheadthenightbeforetheplanecrash,orbecauseoffactualinaccuracy,suchasPyleencounteringanalligatorafterfleeingfromtheplanecrashwreckage.[11](PyleDep.95:20–97:7,97:22–101:22.)

CleopatraintendstoplacecardsintheFilm'sopeningcreditstoindicatethatthefilmwasnotauthorizedbyLynyrdSkynyrdoranycurrentorformermemberofLynyrdSkynyrd.(Tr.146:7–12.)

TheFilmis,overall,afilmaboutLynyrdSkynyrd.Thisfindingisbasedonanumberoffactors:areviewoftheFilm'sscriptasdetailedabove,whichexclusivelytellsaportionoftheband'shistorythroughthelensofPyle;Cleopatra'sregularandfactually-focusedinteractionswithPylethroughoutthefilm-makingprocess;Cleopatra'srepeatedselectionoffilmtitlesthatevoketheLynyrdSkynyrdlegacy,notedbothaboveandbelow;andtheCourt'soverallfindingofPereraasanunreliablewitnesswhoseanswersanddemeanorevincedanattemptbytheFilm'smakersandproducerstoevadetheConsentOrderuponitsreceipt.[12]

VIII.Plaintiffs'InstantAction

OnApril23,2017,VarietyreleasedanewsarticleaboutCleopatra'sFilm,nowentitled“StreetSurvivors:TheTrueStoryoftheLynyrdSkynyrdPlaneCrash,”aroundwhichtimePlaintiffsbecameawarethatCleopatrahadcontinuedwithitsFilmproduction.[13](Tr.38:7–20,90:8–23;seePls.'Ex.11.)PrincipalfilmingbeganonApril24,2017.(CohnDep.13:25–14:3.)PlaintiffsinitiatedthepresentactiononMay5,2017.(Tr.38:25–40:1.)

*7OnMay9,2017,inresponsetoPlaintiffs'lawsuit,CleopatramailedPylealettertomodifythecontractwithPyle,limithistitleto“ahistoricalconsultant,”andavoidviolatingtheConsentOrder.(Tr.237:21–25;seealso240:5–25;Pls.'Ex.58.)TheMay9letterstatedthatthepriorJune2016agreementbetweenCleopatraandPylewastobe“voidabinitio”andthat,actually,PylehadagreedbackinJune2016toprovidehistoricalinformationfortheFilmforasetsumof$2,500,afeewhichCleopatraproceededtoissuetoPylethatsameday.(Pls.'Ex.58;seePls.'Ex.59.)CleopatraviewedacquiringPyle'ssignatureonthisdocumentas“fairlyurgent.”(Pls.'Ex.57.)[14]

PrincipalphotographyofCleopatra'sFilmwrappedupinmid-May2017.[15](CohnDep.23:12–13.)Sometimeinmid-May2017,followingtheendoffilming,Cohnswitchedcellphoneprovidersand,consequently,acquiredanewcellphone.(CohnDep.23:2–20.)AlthoughcertaindataonCohn'soldphonewasbacked-up,suchaspictures,otherdatawasnotpreserved,suchasCohn'stextmessages,includingthosesentandreceivedfromPyle.(CohnDep.23:21–24:16.)

IX.Plaintiffs'LynyrdSkynyrdFilm,CountryMusicTelevisionProject,andOtherPriorWorksAboutLynyrdSkynyrd

PlaintiffsarecurrentlydevelopingtheirownfilmaboutLynyrdSkynyrd,thoughtheprocessisstillinearlystages.(Tr.34:12–16,83:6–13.)BackinFebruary2017,twofilmproducerspresentedPlaintiffswithanoutlineoftheproject,thoughtheoutlinehasyettobeapprovedandnextstepsarestillforthcoming.(Tr.34:17–35:4,82:23–83:2,83:22–25;seePls.'Ex.14.)

Rossington,Jenness,andJohnnyVanZant,VanZant'sbrother,arealsoworkingwithCountryMusicTelevision(“CMT”)onadocumentaryfilmaboutLynyrdSkynyrdentitled“IfILeaveHereTomorrow:AFilmAboutLynyrdSkynyrd,”whichwillbefocusedonVanZantandhisrelationshipwiththeLynyrdSkynyrdbandmembers.(SeePls.'Ex.67;Tr.84:26–87:14.)

5of18

IntheyearsfollowingthesigningoftheConsentOrder,therehavebeenmanydifferentbooks,televisionshows,andradioprogramsaboutLynyrdSkynyrd.(See,e.g.,Defs.'Ex.62at266:22–268:13;Tr.78:3–21)Attimes,signatoriestotheConsentOrdersuchasPylehavebeeninterviewedforsuchprojects.(See,e.g.,Tr.75:5–6,77:7–10.)

PriorProceedings

PlaintiffsfiledtheirComplaintonMay5,2017,allegingaviolationoftheConsentOrderandseekingapermanentinjunctionastoCleopatra'sfilm(FirstCauseofAction)andanawardofattorneys'fees(SecondCauseofAction).(Dkt.No.18(the“Complaint”).)OnJune12,2017,Plaintiffs'requestforatemporaryrestrainingorderandpreliminaryinjunctionwasdenied.(Dkt.No.11.)Expediteddiscoveryproceeded.

OnJune30,2017,PlaintiffsrequestedtheCourtissueanadverseinferencesanctionagainstDefendantsforspoliationoftextmessageevidencebetweenCohnandPyle.OnJuly1,2017,CleopatramovedtodismisstheComplaintandforsummaryjudgment.OnJuly11,2017,Cleopatra'smotiontodismisswasdenied.

EvidencewaspresentedonJuly11and12,2017.FinalargumentsandsubmissionsweremadeonJuly26,2017;Plaintiffs'andCleopatra'soutstandingmotionswereheardandmarkedfullysubmittedthesameday.

ConclusionsofLaw

I.PlaintiffsareEntitledtoAnAdverseInference

*8[1]Asaninitialmatter,Plaintiffshavemoved,eitherpursuanttoFederalRuleofCivilProcedure37(e)ortheCourt'sinherentauthority,thattheCourtdrawanadverseinferencewithrespecttotheunpreservedtextmessagesbetweenCohnandPylelostwhenCohnswitchedphonesinHay2017.Thisshowinghasbeenmet.[16]

[2][3][4]Spoliationis“thedestructionorsignificantalterationofevidence,orthefailuretopreservepropertyforanother'suseasevidenceinpendingorreasonablyforeseeablelitigation.”Westv.GoodyearTire&RubberCo.,167F.3d776,779(2dCir.1999).FederalRuleofCivilProcedure37(e)(1)permitsacourttosanctionaparty“[i]felectronicallystoredinformationthatshouldhavebeenpreservedintheanticipationorconductoflitigationislostbecauseapartyfailedtotakereasonablestepstopreserveit,anditcannotberestoredorreplacedthroughadditionaldiscovery.”Wherethepartythatfailedtopreservetheelectronicallystoredinformation(“ESI”)“actedwiththeintenttodepriveanotherpartyoftheinformation'suseinthelitigation,”theCourtmay“instructthejurythatitmayormustpresumetheinformationwasunfavorabletotheparty”or“dismisstheactionorenteradefaultjudgment.”Fed.R.Civ.P.37(e)(2).Thedutytopreserveextendsto“anydocumentsortangiblethings(asdefinedbyRule34(a))...‘likelytohavediscoverableinformationthatthedisclosingpartymayusetosupportitsclaimsordefenses.’”Zubulakev.UBSWarburg,LLC,220F.R.D.212,217(S.D.N.Y.2003)(citationsomitted)(theparties“mustnotdestroyunique,relevantevidencethatmightbeusefultoanadversary”).Factorsthatthecourtconsidersinclude:(1)whetherthepartyactedwillfully,negligently,orinbadfaith;and(2)theprejudicesufferedbythepartyseekingthediscovery.SeeJohnBoHull,Inc.v.WaterburyPetroleumProds.,Inc.,845F.2d1172,1176(2dCir.1988)).

[5]CleopatraarguesthatitcannotbesanctionedfortheactionsCohn,anon-party,tookandwhosephone,Cleopatracontends,wasnotwithintheircontrol.However,the“conceptof‘control’hasbeenconstruedbroadly.”InreNTL,Inc.Sec.Litig.,244F.R.D.179,195&n.19(S.D.N.Y.2007)(quotingMarcRich&Co.v.UnitedStates,707F.2d663,667(2dCir.1983),andcollectingcases),aff'dsubnom.GordonPartnersv.Blumenthal,No.02Civ.7377(LAK),2007WL1518632(S.D.N.Y.May17,2007).Documentsareconsideredtobeunderaparty'scontrol“ifthepartyhasthepracticalabilitytoobtainthedocumentsfromanother,irrespectiveofhislegalentitlement.”InreNASDAQMkt.MakersAntitrustLitig.,169F.R.D.493,530(S.D.N.Y.1996)(citationomitted).

*9Here,whileCohnisanon-party,histextmessageswere,practicallyspeaking,underCleopatra'scontrol.CohnwascontractedbyCleopatratoworkontheFilm,andtheevidencehasestablishesthatheworkedcloselywithCleopatraforoverthepastyear.Overthecourseoftheinstantlitigation,CohnhasparticipatedbyprovidingdocumentsandtookadepositionsoughtbyPlaintiffsduringdiscovery.[17]Ashasbeenfoundrelevantinothercasesdeterminingtherelationshipbetweenapartyandnon-parties,Cohnalsohasafinancialinterestintheoutcomeofthislitigation,sinceheisentitledtoapercentageoftheFilm'snetreceipts,whichwouldbezeroshouldPlaintiffsprevail.SeeGoldenTrade,S.r.L.v.LeeApparelCo.,143F.R.D.514,525(S.D.N.Y.1992)(findingthatacompanyhadlegalcontroloverdocumentsinpossessionofnon-party,unaffiliatedsub-licensingcompanybecauseofthecooperativerelationshipbetweenthetwo);(Defs.'Ex.805at2).Insum,whiledeterminingpracticalcontrolisnotanexactscience,“commonsense”indicates

6of18

thatCohn'stextswithPylewerewithinCleopatra'scontrol,andinthefaceofpendinglitigationoverPyle'sroleintheFilm,shouldhavebeenpreserved.GenOnMid–Atl.,LLCv.Stone&Webster,Inc.,282F.R.D.346,355(S.D.N.Y.2012)(findingthatwhileapartypossessednolegalcontrolovernon-party'sdocuments,therewas“littledoubtthat[thethird-party]wouldhavecompliedwithatimelyrequestby[Plaintiff]topreserveitsinformation”).

CleopatranextcontendsthatPlaintiffshavenotestablishedPlaintiffsissuedCohnavalidsubpoenaforthetextmessagesand,therefore,therecannotbesanctionsforCohn'snoncompliance.DefendantsarecorrectthatunderFed.R.Civ.P.45(c)(2)(A),subpoenasfordocumentproductionmusthaveproductionlocationswithin100milesofwheretheperson“resides,isemployed,orregularlytransactsbusinessinperson.”PlaintiffshavenotestablishedthatCohnworksorresidesanywherebutCalifornia,andthesubpoenaissuedforhimrequiredproductioninNewYork;itisalsounestablishedthatDefendantswerewillingtoacceptserviceofthesubpoenaonCohn'sbehalf.

However,whattherulesrequireisindependentofapropersubpoenaandsimplythatthelostinformation“shouldhavebeenpreserved,”andtherehasbeennodisputethatthemissingtextswouldhavebeenrelevanttotheinstantmatter.Fed.R.Civ.P.37(e);seeWestv.GoodyearTire&RubberCo.,167F.3d776,779(2dCir.1999)(“Evenwithoutadiscoveryorder,adistrictcourtmayimposesanctionsforspoliation.”).Moreover,unlikethecasesCleopatrahascitedinsupportitsposition,Plaintiffshavetriedrepeatedly—albeitunsuccessfully—throughoutthisexpeditedlitigationtoaccessthesedocuments.ContraGoonewardenav.N.Y.WorkersComp.Bd.,No.09Civ.8244(RA),–––F.Supp.3d––––,––––,2017WL2799171,at*16(S.D.N.Y.June28,2017)(rejectingprejudicefromspoliationandsanctionswhereduring“discovery[theotherparties]neveraskedfortheevidencelatershowntohavebeenspoliated”).Plaintiffsmayverylikelyhaveattempted,withgreatersuccess,toacquireCohn'stextswithPyle;afterlearningthetextsweredestroyed,however,suchopportunitywasforeclosed.

Lastly,CleopatraarguesthatPlaintiffhavenotshownprejudicebecausePlaintiffscouldintheoryhaveacquiredthetextmessagesfromPyleandbecauseDefendantshaveproducedalargenumberofotherdocuments,renderingthemissingmessagescumulative.AstoPyle,whohasmademinimalappearanceandhasnotproducedanydocumentsinthislitigation,PlaintiffshaverepresentedthattheysoughtPyle'smessagestonoavail,acredibleclaim;moreover,giventhetimeframesoughtbythepartiesforthismatter,thisissufficienteffort.Astothemessagesthemselves,whileCleopatrahasproducedmuchevidenceduringthediscoveryprocess,nonespeakdirectlytoanimportantpieceofthispuzzlethatwouldhavebeencoveredbythetexts:thequalityofinteractionbetweenPyle,theConsentOrder'ssignatory,andCohn,theprincipalwriterandsingulardirectoroftheFilm,arelationshipthatevidenceestablishedwasprincipallydevelopedthroughtextmessages.(CohnDep.22:8–22,PyleDep.46:15–47:4.)Withoutthosemessages,theprecisenatureandfrequencyofthosecommunicationscannotbeverified.

*10Lastly,Cohn'sactionswithregardtothetextmessages—gettinganewphoneafterPlaintiffsbroughttheinstantactionandmanagingtoback-uppicturesbut,somehow,nottextmessages,(seeCohnDep.23:1–24:16)—evincethekindofdeliberatebehaviorthatsanctionsareintendedtopreventandweighinfavorofanadverseinference.SeeWest,167F.3dat779(holdingthat“sanction[s]shouldbedesignedto:(1)deterpartiesfromengaginginspoliation;(2)placetheriskofanerroneousjudgmentonthepartywhowrongfullycreatedtherisk;and(3)restoretheprejudicedpartytothesamepositionhewouldhavebeeninabsentthewrongfuldestructionofevidencebytheopposingparty”(citationsandinternalquotationmarksomitted)).Accordingly,anadverseinferenceastothemissingCohntextmessageswillbepresumedagainstCleopatra.

II.PlaintiffsareNotEntitledtoAMissingWitnessCharge

[6]PlaintiffsseekamissingwitnessadverseinferencebecauseCohndidnottestifyattrial.PlaintiffsarguethatCleopatrafailedtocallCohntotestifyandconcealedCohn'spresenceduringthetrialproceedingsfromtheCourt.EveniflanguageemployedbyCleopatra'scounselduringtrialwasartfullycrafted[18],noneofPlaintiffs'argumentswarranttheadverseinferencetheyseek.

[7][8][9]“Amissingwitnesscharge...toinferthatthetestimonyofanuncalledwitnessmighthavefavoredaspecifiedpartyisappropriateifproductionofthatwitnessispeculiarlywithinthepoweroftheotherparty.”UnitedStatesv.Mittelstaedt,31F.3d1208,1216(2dCir.1994)(citingUnitedStatesv.Nichols,912F.2d598,601(2dCir.1990))(internalalterationsandquotationmarksomitted).Acourtistoconsider“allthefactsandcircumstancesbearinguponthewitness'srelationtotheparties,ratherthanmerelyonphysicalpresenceoraccessibility.”Martinelliv.BridgeportRomanCatholicDiocesanCorp.,196F.3d409,432n.10(2dCir.1999)(quotingUnitedStatesv.Torres,845F.2d1165,1170–71(2dCir.1988)).“Whetheramissingwitnesschargeshouldbegivenliesinthesounddiscretionofthetrialcourt.”Torres,845F.2dat1170–

7of18

71(citationsomitted).

NothingpresentedhasestablishedthatCohnwaspeculiarlyinthecontrolofCleopatra,andthefactthatCleopatrachosenottocallhimdoesnotaffectthat.Moreover,PlaintiffshadtheabilitytodeposeCohn,whichtheydid,andthedepositionofwhichwasadmittedintoevidence.Amissingwitnesschargeisnotmeritedinsuchcircumstances.SeeVelezv.NovartisPharm.Corp.,No.04Civ.9194(CM),2010WL11043081,at*3(S.D.N.Y.Feb.25,2010)(notingthat“abilityof[opposingcounsel]touseitsowntimetocall(bysubpoenaorbydeposition)”themissingwitnessweighsagainstamissingwitnesscharge);accordCameoConvalescentCtr.,Inc.v.Senn,738F.2d836,844(7thCir.1984)(observingthat“thejustificationforthemissingwitnessinstructiondiminisheswiththeavailabilityofthetoolsofdiscovery”andrejectingmissingwitnesschargewhenopposingparty“relieduponandquotedextensivelyfromthedepositionsofmissingwitnesses”)(citingE.CLEARY,McCormickonEvidence§272,at657(2ded.1972)).

III.PlaintiffsareEntitledtoAPermanentInjunction

PlaintiffscontendthatPyle,asasignatorytotheConsentOrder,isboundbyitsprovisions;thatCleopatraactedinconcertorparticipationwithPyleinproducingCleopatra'smotionpicture,inturnbindingCleopatratotheConsentOrder;andthattheproductionofCleopatra'smotionpicturewasinviolationoftheConsentOrder.Inresponse,CleopatrahasmadecounterargumentsattackingeachlinkinPlaintiffs'syllogism.

*11[10]“Toobtainapermanentinjunction,aplaintiffmustsucceedonthemeritsand‘showtheabsenceofanadequateremedyatlawandirreparableharmifthereliefisnotgranted.’”Roachv.Morse,440F.3d53,56(2dCir.2006)(quotingN.Y.S.Nat'lOrg.forWomenv.Terry,886F.2d1339,1362(2dCir.1989)).Basedontheaforementionedfindingsoffactandasdiscussedbelow,Plaintiffshaveestablishedtheircase,adequatelyrespondedtoeachofCleopatra'sarguments,andareentitledtojudgmentintheirfavor.

1.PyleisBoundbytheConsentOrder

[11]Cleopatrahasarguedthat,althoughitisuncontestedthatPylesignedtheConsentOrder,bywritingnexttohissignaturethewords“UnderProtest,”herenderedhissignaturenonconsensualand,therefore,isnotboundtotheConsentOrder'sprovisions.Insupport,Cleopatrapointstoahandfulofstate-levelauthorityforthepropositionthatsigning“underprotest”onadocumentdoesnotconstituteactualassent.[19](SeePls.'Ex.1.)

[12]Cleopatra'sargumentandsupportingauthorityarenotpersuasive.First,asevenCleopatra'scasesmakeclear,inthecontextofcommonlawcontractualassent,thepresenceofaphraselike“underprotest”doesnotsingularlyturnasignatoryintoanon-signatory:whatmattersisthecontextsurroundingtheinclusionandwhethera“contemporaneousexplanation”supporteditspresence,BergenlineProp.Grp.,2015WL7428755,at*4n.2(quotingQuigleyv.KPMGPeatMarwick,LLP,330N.J.Super.252,266–267,749A.2d405(App.Div.2000),afactorthatcourtsinthisstatealsoconsider.SeeMillerv.N.Y.C.Health&Hosp.Corp.,No.00Civ.140(PKC),2004WL1907310,at*13(S.D.N.Y.Aug.25,2004)(rejectingthatanagreementwassignedunderduresswhen“SignedUnderProtest”waswrittenabovethesignaturelinewhenobjectingparty“raise[d]noargumentconcerningthecircumstances”underlyingthesignature).

ThefactualcircumstancesestablishthatPyle'sinclusionofthenotation“UnderProtest”doesnotrenderPyle'ssignaturenonconsensual.PylesignedtheConsentOrderwhilerepresentedbycounsel;furthermore,PylehasacknowledgedthattheConsentOrderreflectedthatthepartiestothe1988Actionwereinagreementastoitsterms,hehasacceptedpaymentsundertheConsentOrderformanyyears,andhasneverpersonallycontestedthatheisnotboundbytheConsentOrder'sconditions.Assuch,theevidencesupportstheconclusionthattherewasa“meetingoftheminds”atthetimetheConsentOrderwassigned,andthecircumstanceshereforecloseCleopatra'sabilitytoarguethatPyleisnotboundbythestricturesoftheConsentOrder.Schurrv.AustinGalleriesofIll.,Inc.,719F.2d571,576(2dCir.1983)(citationsomitted)(“UnderNewYorkcontractisameetingofthemindsoftheparties.”);cf.Donovanv.PennShippingCo.,536F.2d536,536(2dCir.1976)(rejectingplaintiff'sabilitytocontestaremittitursigned“underprotest”afterAcceptingsaidremittitur).

2.CleopatraCanBeBoundbytheConsentOrder

*12[13]Cleopatranextarguesthat,evenifPyleisboundbytheConsentOrder,CleopatracannotbebecauseCleopatraisanon-signatorytotheConsentOrderandanon-partytotheunderlying1988Action.Specifically,Cleopatrahasarguedthereisadistinctionbetweenanenforcingcourt'spowersinthecontextofenforcinganinjunctionversusenforcingaconsentdecree.Suchadividehasnosupportinlaw,andCleopatracanbeboundbytheConsentOrder.

8of18

[14][15][16][17]Acourt'spowertoenforceprovisionsofconsentorderscomesprincipallyfromtheAllWritsAct,28U.S.C.§1651(a),which“empowersCourtstoissueextraordinarywrits‘asmaybenecessaryorappropriatetoeffectuateandpreventthefrustrationofanorderithaspreviouslyissued.’”UnitedStatesv.Int'lBhd.ofTeamsters,907F.2d277,280(2dCir.1990)(quotingUnitedStatesv.N.Y.Tel.Co.,434U.S.159,172,98S.Ct.364,54L.Ed.2d376(1977)).ThesweepoftheActiswide:“ThepowerconferredbytheActextends,underappropriatecircumstances,topersonswho,thoughnotpartiestotheoriginalactionorengagedinwrongdoing,areinapositiontofrustratetheimplementationofacourtorderortheproperadministrationofjustice,encompasseseventhosewhohavenottakenanyaffirmativeactiontohinderjustice.”N.Y.Tel.Co.,434U.S.at174,98S.Ct.364.IntheSecondCircuit,theAllWritsActhasbeenaffirmedwhenusedtopreventthecircumventionofacourt'spreviousorder,seeSheetMetalContractorsAss'nofN.N.J.v.SheetMetalWorkers'Int'lAss'n,157F.3d78,82–83(2dCir.1998)(findingAllWritsActtheproperbasisforinjunctionofnonpartytotheoriginalorder),and“makesnodistinctionsbetweenpartiesandnonparties,”Int'lBhd.OfTeamsters,266F.3dat50.Consentordersanddecreesareenforcedlikeothercourtorders.Bergerv.Heckler,771F.2d1556,1568(2dCir.1985)(citationsomitted)(“Consentdecreesaresubjecttocontinuingsupervisionandenforcementbythecourt.Acourthasanaffirmativedutytoprotecttheintegrityofitsdecree.Thisdutyariseswheretheperformanceofonepartythreatenstofrustratethepurposeofthedecree.”(citationandinternalalternationsomitted)).

CleopatrareliesonlanguagefromAss'nforRetardedCitizensofConn.,Inc.v.Thorne,30F.3d367(2dCir.1994),toarguethatconsentordersonlybindthosewhovoluntarilyagreetothem,whichCleopatraundisputedlydidnotdowithrespecttotheConsentOrder.Seeid.at370(“Whileadistrictcourthasauthoritytoenforceajudicially-approvedconsentdecreeagainstthepartiestoit,adistrictcourtthatenforcesthedecreeagainstanonpartyactsbeyonditsjurisdictionandthusbeyondthescopeoftheAllWritsAct.”).However,Thorne'sfactsandholdingareinappositetotheinstantcase.

InThorne,theSecondCircuitoverturnedadistrict'scourtdecisiontojoinapreviousnon-partyasadefendanttoalitigationyearsafterafinalorderwasenteredbythedistrictcourt,theeffectofwhichwouldhavemadethenon-partysubjecttoeveryprovisionofthepreviously-enteredconsentdecree.Seeid.at368.TheThornecourtmadeitsopinionpointedlynarrow,“conclud[ing]onlythatthedistrictcourt'sdecisiontoadd[thenon-party]tothissuitafterafinalconsentjudgmenthadalreadybeenenteredwasnotauthorizedbytheAllWritsAct.”Id.at373.Thorne'sholdingwasbasedonfactsdistinctthosepresentedhere.PlaintiffsarenotseekingtoaddCleopatraasapartytothe1988ActionortobindCleopatratoeveryprovisionoftheConsentOrder.

*13Bycontrast,insubsequentSecondCircuitauthority,InreEgri,68Fed.Appx.249,256(2dCir.2003),thecircuitcourtaffirmedadistrictcourt'sgrantofapermanentinjunctionundertheAllWritsActthatpreventednon-signatoryresidentsofatownfromchallengingthevalidityofaconsentdecreebetweenthetownandanelectriccompany.TheEgriCourtrejectedcomparisonstoThornebynotingthat“unlikethedistrictcourtin[Thorne],herethedistrictcourt‘hassoughtnottobind[non-party]appellantstotheconsentdecree,buttoenjointhemfromactsthatwouldfrustratetheconsentdecree'soperationonpartiesthatareboundtothedecree.’”Id.at255(quotingUnitedStatesv.Int'lBhd.ofTeamsters,Chauffeurs,Warehousemen&HelpersofAm.,AFL–CIO,266F.3d45,50(2dCir.2001)).“[A]ninjunctionthatmerelyseekstoenjoinbehaviorsthatcouldfrustratetheoperationofaconsentdecreeareauthorizedbytheAllWritsAct,eveniftheinjunctionoperatesagainstnon-parties.”Id.at256.

Suchisthesituationhere.TheConsentOrderdictates,amongstmanythings,parametersforthesignatories'useofthenameLynyrdSkynyrd,theband'sstory,theband'smusic,andthename,likenes,orhistoryofVanZantorGaines;itstermsprohibitthose“inconcertorparticipationwith”thesignatoriesfromviolatingtheseportionsoftheConsentOrder'sstrictures.(SeeConsentOrderat1–2.)IftherewasaviolationoftheConsentOrderbyPyle,itiswithinthepoweroftheCourttoenjointhoseactinginconcertwithhim,not“toforcenon-partiestoabidebythetermsofthatorder,”but“insofaras[itis]essentialtotheimplementationofthatorder.”InreEgri,68Fed.Appx.at256;seealsoUnitedStatesv.MasonTendersDist.CouncilofGreaterN.Y.,205F.Supp.2d183,189(S.D.N.Y.2002)(enjoiningnon-signatoriestoconsentdecreeundertheAllWritsActandnotingthatthoseenjoinedwerenot“boundtothestricturesofthe[ConsentDecree],anactionthatwouldbeoutsidethedistrictcourt'sdiscretion”butratherwere“enjoinedfromactsthatwouldfrustratetheConsentDecree'soperationonpartiesthatareboundbythedecree—anactwellwithinthedistrictcourt'sdiscretion”);BearU.S.A.,Inc.v.Kim,71F.Supp.2d237,246,248(S.D.N.Y.1999) (enjoiningthird-partymanufacturerwhoacted“inactiveconcert”withdefendantboundbypreviouscourtorderfromdistributinginfringingproductsafterbeinginformedofcourtorder),aff'd,216F.3d1071(2dCir.2000).ForaConsentOrdertobeeffective,itmustprovideprotectionagainstthosewhowouldseektoundermineitsterms;

9of18

withoutmeaningfulprotection,suchanorderisjustapieceofpaperand“ain'tnogoodfornothingelse.”LYNYRDSKYNYRD,SaturdayNightSpecial,onNUTHIN'FANCY(MCARecords1974);seealsoBearU.S.A.,71F.Supp.2dat246(“LearnedHandexplainedthatajudgmentbindsnotonlytheparties,butalso‘apersonnotaparty...whenhehashelpedtobringabout...anactofaparty[forbiddenbythejudgment].”(quotingAlemiteMfg.Corp.v.Staff,42F.2d832,833(2dCir.1930)).

3.DefendantsHaveViolatedtheConsentOrder

[18]Cleopatranextarguesthat,evenifPyleandCleopatraareboundtotermsoftheConsentOrder,Defendantsactionsdonotconstituteaviolationofitsterms.First,CleopatracontendsthatCleopatracouldonlyhaveviolatedtheConsentOrderafterlearningofitsterms,afterwhichCleopatraclaimsthatitamelioratedtheharm;second,CleopatraattemptstohouseitsuseofVanZantandGaines'namesandlikenessesasprotectedas“nominativefairuse.”Theseargumentsareunavailing.

GiventhetermsoftheConsentOrderandPlaintiffs'allegations,toestablishthatDefendantsviolatedtheConsentOrder'sterms,PlaintiffsneedtoshowthatCleopatra(1)hadknowledgeoftheConsentOrderand(2)acted“inconcertorparticipation”withaPyletousethe“name,likeness,portrait,picture,performanceorbiographicalmaterialofRonnieVanZant[]orStevenGaines[].”(ConsentOrder1(iii));seeInreBaldwin–UnitedCorp.(SinglePremiumDeferredAnnuitiesIns.Litig.),770F.2d328,339(2dCir.1985)(“AlthoughRule65doesnotapplytoinjunctionsissuedundertheAll–WritsActagainstnon-partieswhoseactionswouldimpairthecourt'sjurisdiction,wedonotabandontherequirementsthataninjunctionbespecificanddefiniteenoughtoapprisethosewithinitsscopeoftheconductthatisbeingproscribedandthatthosesubjecttotheinjunctionreceiveappropriatenoticeofitsterms.”(internalcitationomitted));VuittonetFilsS.A.v.CarouselHandbags,592F.2d126,130(2dCir.1979)(requiringthatplaintiffprovethatnon-partiestoconsentorderwereawareoforder'sprovisionsbeforeenjoiningdefendants).

*14Here,asdescribedabove,thefactshaveestablishedthatCleopatrawasawareoftheConsentOrderanditsprovisions,atthelatest,byJuly2016.[20]SeeFindingsofFactSectionVsupra.Inthetimebetweenthenandthestartoftheinstantlitigation,evidenceestablishedthatCleopatraandPylecontinuedtoadheretotheirJune2016contract:PylewasfilmedforacameoappearanceandwroteoriginalmusicfortheFilm.Moreover,whilenotthefinalsayoncreativedecisionsintheFilm,Pylewasrepeatedlyconsultedthroughoutthewholeproductionprocess,providingadviceabouttheFilm'sscript,casting,andcostumesthattheinternalCleopatracommunicationsestablishwerebothsolicitedandusedbyCleopatra.SeeFindingsofFactSectionVIsupra.Intheaftermathoftheceaseanddesistletter,whileCleopatramayhavestoppedoutwardlyreferringtoPyleasaco-producer,andPylemaynothimselfhavepennedthefinalscript,theevidencepresentedhasshownthatCleopatra'sFilmwasmade,throughout2016and2017,withtheparticipationofPyle.[21]

Cleopatra'sconsultationswithPylewereimportantbecausetheFilmincorporates,insubstantivepart,thedepictionsofVanZant,Gaines,andtherestoftheLynyrdSkynyrdband,aswellasmajorbitsoftheirhistory.CleopatraarguesthattheirFilmisPyle'sstory,asnopartoftheFilmdepictsthehistoryofLynyrdSkynyrdwithoutPyleandwhichispermittedunderthetermsoftheConsentOrder.(SeeConsentOrder3.)Toanextent,thisistrue:thereisnodoubtthatPyleplaysacentralroleintheFilm.However,theinverseofCleopatra'sclaimistruetoo:nopartoftheFilmdepictsPyleoutsidehistimewithLynyrdSkynyrd.Assuch,thereisalsonodoubtthattheFilmisafilmabouttheLynyrdSkynyrdband.Asthefactshavedemonstrated,noneoftheDefendantsreceivedtherequisiteauthorizationunderthetermsoftheConsentOrderindepictionofVanZantorGainesorintheuseoftheLynyrdSkynyrdname,andthereforeallhaveviolatedtheConsentOrder.[22]

4.PlaintiffsHaveShownIrreparableHarm

[19]Lastly,Cleopatrahasarguedthat,eveniftheConsentOrderwereviolated,apermanentinjunctionwouldstillbeinappropriatebecausePlaintiffshavenotshownirreparableharmcausedbytheproductionofCleopatra'sFilm.Asapreliminarymatter,isnotclearthatsucharequirementexistswithregardtoinjunctionsissuedundertheAllWritsAct,as“infashioninganinjunctionunderthe[AllWritsAct],acourtisnotconstrainedtofollowtherequirementsofRule65.”Am.BooksellersAss'n,Inc.v.HoughtonMifflinCo.,No.94Civ.8566(JFK),1998WL436364,at*2(S.D.N.Y.July28,1998)(citationsomitted);seeInreBaldwin–UnitedCorp.,770F.2dat339(“WedonotbelievethatRule65wasintendedtoimpose...alimitonthecourt'sauthorityprovidedbytheAllWritsActtoprotectitsabilitytorenderabindingjudgment.”).ButseeEllisv.GallatinSteelCo.,390F.3d461,472,474(6thCir.2004)(notingthatthetraditionalstandardsforobtaininginjunctivereliefincludesashowingofirreparableharm,butinthecontextofaninjunctiongranted“understatelaw”andcitingtoprecedentaddressingpreliminaryinjunctions).Rather,“allthatisnecessaryisthatthe

10of18

injunctionundertheAllWritsActbe‘necessaryorappropriate’topreventthefrustrationofacourt'spreviousremedialorder.”FederatedConservationistsofWestchesterCty.,Inc.v.CityofYonkers,117F.Supp.2d371,384(S.D.N.Y.2000)(citationomitted),aff'd,26Fed.Appx.84(2dCir.2002).Asdiscussedabove,enjoiningtheproductionofCleopatra'sFilmisnecessarytopreventthetermsoftheConsentOrderfrombeingviolated.

*15Inanyevent,Plaintiffshavedemonstratedproofofirreparableharm.[23]ThecreationoftheConsentOrder,andinparticulartheprovisionsrestrictingtheuseofthename,likeness,andbiographyofZantandGaines,demonstrateinpartadesiretopreserveandprotectthememoryofdeceasedhusbandsandfriends.TheevidencehasnotestablishedthatrequiredauthorizersundertheConsentOrderhavegivenapprovaltothewayCleopatrahaschosentotellthestoryofVanZant,Jenness'deadhusband,orthebandmember'sband.Totheextentthatthosewhobargainedfortherighttohaveasayinhowsuchmemoriesaresustained,the“lossofcontroloverone'sreputationisneither‘calculablenorpreciselycompensable’”U.S.PoloAss'n,Inc.v.PRLUSAHoldings,Inc.,800F.Supp.2d515,540(S.D.N.Y.2011)(quotingPowerTestPetroleumDistribs.,Inc.v.CalcuGas,Inc.,754F.2d91,95(2dCir.1985)),aff'd,511Fed.Appx.81(2dCir.2013).Furthermore,astothelegacyoffriendsandlovedones,the“emotionaldamagesaredifficulttoquantify”andtheremedycannotbefoundtobemonetary.Grondinv.Rossington,690F.Supp.200,204(S.D.N.Y.1988).Lastly,thislatestattemptbyPyletoevadetheConsentOrder'srequirements,nowwithassistancebyCleopatrabutpreviouslywithothers,itselfcreates“palpable”irreparableinjury,anditislikelythatPlaintiffswillcontinuetobefrustratedintheirattempttoenforcetheConsentOrderabsentapermanentinjunction.ExperienceHendrix,LLCv.Chalpin,461F.Supp.2d165,169(S.D.N.Y.2006) .

5.Cleopatra'sAffirmativeDefensesAreUnavailing

CleopatrahasputforwardseveralaffirmativedefensestonegateliabilityeveniftheFilmwouldotherwisehavebeeninviolationoftheConsentOrder:specifically,thatPlaintiffs'claimisbarredbythedoctrinesoflatchesoruncleanhands,orthatPlaintiffs'sought-afterinjunctionwouldimposeunconstitutionalpriorrestraintofprotectedspeechonCleopatrainviolationoftheFirstAmendmentoftheU.S.Constitution.EachofCleopatra'sdefensesfails.

i.Laches

[20]CleopatrahasarguedthatthedoctrineoflachesprohibitsPlaintiffsfromobtainingtheequitablerelieftheyseek.Specifically,CleopatracontendsthatPlaintiffsknewthatCleopatrawasproducingtheFilmbackinJuly2016whenPlaintiffsfirstsentCleopatratheceaseanddesistletter,receivedcorrespondencefromCleopatrainAugust2016indicatingCleopatraintendedtocontinuemakingtheFilm,andthenunreasonablywaiteduntilMay2017tobringtheinstantaction,bywhichpointCleopatrahadspentoveramilliondollarsinproductioncosts.Plaintiffsrespondthatin2016theywereledtobelievethatfilminghadstoppedand,furthermore,thatnosignificantfinancialexpendituresoccurreduntilafterPlaintiffshadprovidednoticetoCleopatraoftheConsentOrder.

[21][22]Lachesprotectsdefendantswhenaplaintiffhas“unreasonablyandinexcusablydelaysinseekinganinjunction,andthedefendantisprejudicedbythatdelay.”Nat'lCouncilofArabAms.v.CityofN.Y.,331F.Supp.2d258,265(S.D.N.Y.2004)(citingPerezv.DanburyHosp.,347F.3d419,426(2dCir.2003)).Thequestionoflachesisone“primarilyaddressedtothediscretionofthetrialcourtwhichmustconsidertheequitiesoftheparties.”Beacherv.EstateofBeacher,756F.Supp.2d254,277(E.D.N.Y.2010)(quotingGardnerv.PanamaR.R.Co.,342U.S.29,30,31,72S.Ct.12,96L.Ed.31(1951)(percuriam));Tri–StarPictures,Inc.v.LeisureTimeProds.,B.V.,17F.3d38,44(2dCir.1994)(“Theinquiryisafactualone.Thedeterminationofwhetherlachesbarsaplaintifffromequitablereliefisentirelywithinthediscretionofthetrialcourt.”).

*16Asneitherelementoflacheshasbeenestablishedbythefacts,thisargumentmustfail.Astothefirstelement,Plaintiffsdelayinbringingitsactionin2017,whilenotgroundedinaflawlessreadingoftheexchangesbetweenCleopatraandPlaintiffsin2016,wasnotunreasonable.Cleopatrapointstoitsreplylettertotheinitialceaseanddesist,whichincludeslanguagestronglyaffirmingCleopatra'srighttomakeitsfilmindependentoftheexistenceoftheConsentOrder.(SeeDefs.'Ex.3.)Cleopatra'sresponse,however,wassentbeforeCleopatrahadreceivedandreadthetermsoftheConsentOrder,whichwassentbyPlaintiffsshortlythereafter.

Onceincontext,theAugust2016communicationbetweenCleopatraandPlaintiffs,throughJenness—theFacebookmessageexchange—takesonadifferentlight.WhenCleopatrarequestedtochatwithJennessaboutthemovieproject,shortlyafterreceivingtheConsentOrder,itwouldhavebeenreasonablefrom

11of18

Plaintiffs'perspectivetoconstruethemessageasanattemptbyCleopatratoworkwithPlaintiffstoreachanaccommodationtopermittheFilmbemadewithinthenow-understoodConsentOrderparameters.AfterhearingnoresponsefromCleopatraafterJennessrequestedadditionalinformationabouttheproject,PlaintiffscouldreasonablyhavethoughttheFilm'sprojectwasaborted,anunderstandingonlydisturbedafterreadingthenewsaboutthecommencementoffilmingCleopatra'sfilminMay2017,establishedattrialasthenextmajorpressreleaseontheFilm.Thisisexcusabledelay.

CleopatrapointstoNewEraPublicationsInt'l,ApSv.HenryHolt&Co.,873F.2d576(2dCir.1989),tosupportitslachesargument,butsuchauthorityisinapposite.InNewEra,theSecondCircuitfoundthatlachesbarredaplaintifffromseekinganinjunctionforacopyrightinfringementbecauseplaintiffhadknown,definitivelyandyearsearlier,ofanallegedlyinfringingbook'spublicationintheUnitedStatesbecauseofadefiantletterbydefendantrefusingtodiscusstheinfringement,hadpursuedinjunctionreliefagainstthesamedefendantinothercountries,andonlythenbroughtsuitintheUnitedStatesafterdefendanthadprintedthousandsofcopies.Id.at584.Afterconsideringthefacts,thecourtfoundsuchdelay“unconscionable.”Id.at585.

AsidefromtheNewEradefendantsandtheDefendantsherebothhavingsentdefiantletterstotheopposingsideatsomepoint,thedifferingfactswarrantdifferentresults.UnlikethesituationinNewEra,Plaintiffs'receiptofCleopatra'sdefiantletterprecededCleopatra'sunderstandingoftheConsentOrderandshadedbythesuccessivemessagingwithJennesstodiscussworkontheFilminthecontextoftheConsentOrder.TheevidencepresentedheremakesclearthatPlaintiffsthreatenedorbroughtlegalactionquickly,andtwice,uponreadingnewsofCleopatra'sFilm,andthattheinstantsuitwasbroughtinMay2017notbecausePlaintiffsdeviouslysoughttopounceonDefendantsonlyaftertheFilmwasmade,butratherbecauseofareasonablemisunderstandingastowhetherfurtheractionwasneededtohalttheitsproduction.SeeImagineering,Inc.v.VanKlassens,Inc.,851F.Supp.532,535(S.D.N.Y.1994) (rejectinglachesdefensewheredelayofseveralyearspriortothecommencementofanactionbased,inpart,onplaintiff'sbeliefthatcompetitorhadcompliedwithceaseanddesistletter,evenaftercompetitorhadsentdefiantresponseletter),aff'dinrelevantpart,53F.3d1260(Fed.Cir.1995).Noneoftheseactionsrisestothelevelofunconscionability.

Even,arguendo,werePlaintiffs'delaytobeunreasonable,thesecondlacheselementisalsonotmet.Thefactshaveshownthat,intermsoffinancialexpenditure,Cleopatraspentthelion'sshareoftheapproximately$1.2millionproducingtheFilminthetimefollowingPlaintiff'sceaseanddesistletteranddeliveranceoftheConsentOrder.(SeeDefs.'Ex.13(showingthemajorityofcostsbyCleopatrainAprilandMay2017).)CleopatrawasawareofthestricturesoftheConsentOrder,wasawarethatPlaintiffswereultimatelylikelytobringsuit,andneverthelesspersistedintheFilm'sproduction;abalanceoftheseequitiesrequiresrejectingalachesdefense.[24]SeeSteinbergv.ColumbiaPicturesIndus.,Inc.,663F.Supp.706,716(S.D.N.Y.1987)(rejectingafindingofprejudicewhere“defendantswereinformedwithinweeksofplaintiff'sdisapprovaloftheirposter”and“presentednoevidencethat,eveniftheyhadacknowledgedanyawarenessofplaintiff'sreaction,theywouldinanywayhavemodifiedtheirsubsequentactions”).

ii.UncleanHands

*17[23]Cleopatrahasarguedthat,evenifPlaintiffs'actionweretimely,itwouldstillbebarredunderthedoctrineofuncleanhands.Specifically,CleopatraclaimsthatasothersignatoriesoftheConsentOrderhavebeenviolatingotherprovisionsoftheConsentOrder—suchastheRuleofThree,DateRequirement,orbeinginvolvedinfilmprojectsCleopatracontendsaresubstantivelysimilartoCleopatra'sFilm—itwouldbeunfairtorequireCleopatratoabidebyprovisionsunderthesamecontract.

[24][25][26]Thedoctrineofuncleanhands“closesthedoorsofacourtofequitytoonetaintedwithinequitablenessorbadfaithrelativetothematterinwhichheseeksrelief,howeverimpropermayhavebeenthebehaviorofthedefendant.”MotorolaCreditCorp.v.Uzan,561F.3d123,129(2dCir.2009)(quotingPrecisionInstrumentMfg.Co.v.Auto.Maint.Mach.Co.,324U.S.806,814,65S.Ct.993,89L.Ed.1381(1945)).Uncleanhandsisanarrowdoctrine,and“appliesonlywherethemisconductallegedasthebasisforthedefense‘hasimmediateandnecessaryrelationtotheequitythat[plaintiff]seeksinrespectofthematterinlitigation.’”SpecialtyMinerals,Inc.v.Pluess–StauferAG,395F.Supp.2d109,112(S.D.N.Y.2005)(quotingKeystoneDrillerCo.v.Gen.ExcavatorCo.,290U.S.240,245,54S.Ct.146,78L.Ed.293(1933));seealsoWarnerBros.,Inc.v.GayToys,Inc.,724F.2d327,334(2dCir.1983) (holdingthatplaintiff'sallegedfalseaccusationofcopyrightinfringementdidnotbarreliefintrademarkinfringementclaim).“Typically,courtsthathavedeniedinjunctivereliefduetoplaintiff'suncleanhandshavefoundplaintiffguiltyoftrulyunconscionableandbrazenbehavior.”Gidatex,S.r.L.v.CampanielloImports,Ltd.,82F.Supp.2d126,131(S.D.N.Y.1999)(collectingcases).“Applicationofthe‘uncleanhands'doctrinerestswiththediscretionof

12of18

thecourt,whichis‘notboundbyformulaorrestrainedbyanylimitationthattendstotrammelthefreeandjustexerciseofdiscretion.’”Aris–IsotonerGloves,Inc.v.BerkshireFashions,Inc.,792F.Supp.969,969–70(S.D.N.Y.1992)(quotingKeystoneDrillerCo.,290U.S.at245,54S.Ct.146).

ItisclearthatPlaintiffshavenotpreciselyfollowedtheletteroftheConsentOrder'sedicts.Forexample,itisuncontestable—andevenreadilyadmittedbyPlaintiffs—thattherehavebeenmodificationstotheConsentOrderovertheyears,suchastotheRuleofThreeandtheDateRequirement,changesthatweremadewithoutaformalwritingsignedbyallthepartiesasrequiredbytheConsentOrder.AstheConsentOrderisthebasisforPlaintiffs'claim,conductundertheConsentOrderbearsrelationtotheequityPlaintiffsseek.

[27][28]WhatisnotclearisthatPlaintiffsshouldbebarredfrombringingtheinstantclaimforthesealterations.What“ismaterialisnotthattheplaintiff'shandsaredirty,butthathedirtiedtheminacquiringtherighthenowasserts.”LizClaiborne,Inc.v.MademoiselleKnitwear,Inc.,13F.Supp.2d430,445(S.D.N.Y.1998)(quotingProjectStrategiesCorp.v.Nat'lCommc'nCorp.,948F.Supp.218,227(E.D.N.Y.1996) ).Inevaluatingwhetheruncleanhandsshouldbeapplied,“[t]herelativeextentofeachparty'swrongupontheotheranduponthepublicshouldbetakenintoaccount,andanequitablebalancestruck.”ProjectStrategiesCorp.,948F.Supp.at227(citationomitted).

Uponinspection,Plaintiffs'conductdoesnotrisetothelevelof“unconscionable”actionjustifyingtheforeclosureoftheirrighttoseekequitablerelief.KeystoneDriller,290U.S.at240,54S.Ct.146.ThemodificationsdonebyPlaintiffsovertheyearshavebeennarrowly-tailoredandreasonable,suchasadjustingtheRuleofThreeasformermembersoftheoriginalLynyrdSkynyrdbandbecameunabletoperform.Allthewhile,thefactshaveestablishedthatPlaintiffshavebeenfocusedonsustainingthespiritoftheConsentOrder'sunderlying“bloodoath,”preservingtheintegrityoftheLynyrdSkynyrdband'sandmembers'storyandmusic,byseekinginjunctionsagainstthoseperceivedtobeimproperlyusingtheircontracted-forrightstotelltheirhistory.Furthermore,undertheConsentOrder,Pylehasbenefitedfinanciallyforyearswithoutcomplaint,andthefactthathehasneversoughttoenforceanyperceivedbreachesoftheConsentOrder'sterms,evenwhenthechangesCleopatrahighlightstodaytookplace,speakstotheimmaterialityofsuchchanges.TobarPlaintiffs'claimtodayforactionsthatwere,atworst,sloppilyenactedbutapparentlyuncontroversial,would“therebyleav[e]twowrongsunremedied.”ProjectStrategiesCorp.,948F.Supp.at227(citationomitted).Equityisnotservedbysuchanoutcome.

*18Lastly,Cleopatra'sargumentthatotherfilmsandprojectsrelatedtoLynyrdSkynyrd,suchastheCMTdocumentary,havebeenpermittedtobemadeandshouldmeritafindingofuncleanhandsisunavailing.TheCMTfilm,alongwiththemanyotherLynyrdSkynyrdworksthatCleopatrahasdetailedinitsbriefingsandwhichPlaintiffshavenotsoughtinjunctionsover,arefundamentallydifferentinatleastonecrucialrespect:theyhavenotbeenestablishedasviolatingthetermsoftheConsentOrder.BooksandfilmsarepermittedtobewrittenaboutLynyrdSkynyrd,andifdoneinconcertwithpartiestotheConsentOrder,canincorporateusethenameandhistoryofLynyrdSkynyrdaspartofatellingofeachindividual'slifestoryorwithcertainConsentOrdersignatories'permission.CleopatrahasnotestablishedthatanyoftheirotheridentifiedLynyrdSkynyrdprojectshadConsentOrdersignatoriesactinginconcertwiththeprojectproducersandcontributingcontenttothedegreethatPylewasinvolvedincontributingtoCleopatra'sFilmordidnothavetherequisitepermissionsundertheConsentOrder.SeeFindingsofFactSectionIXsupra.Pyle'sinvolvementinCleopatra'sparticularandunauthorizedFilm,unlikeotherprojects,placesitoutsidetheConsentOrder'spermissiblebounds.

iii.FirstAmendmentRights

[29]Lastly,CleopatracontendsthattoenjoinitspublicationofitsFilmwouldviolateitsconstitutionallyprotectedrighttofreespeechundertheFirstAmendmentoftheU.S.Constitution.AstheConsentOrderisaprivateagreementthatisnarrowly-tailoredtoprotectthebargained-forrightsofitssignatories,withwhomCleopatrachosetodobusiness,thisargumentfails.

TheFirstAmendmenttotheConstitutionstates,inrelevantpart:“Congressshallmakenolaw...abridgingthefreedomofspeech.”U.S.CONST.,amend.I.Asbetweenprivateparties,however,courtshaveconsistentlyfoundthatanindividualhastheabilityto“contractawayhisrighttoengageinwhatotherwisemightbeconsideredprotected...speech.”JAApparelCorp.v.Abboud,682F.Supp.2d294,317(S.D.N.Y.2010) ;seealsoSneppv.UnitedStates,444U.S.507,509&n.3,100S.Ct.763,62L.Ed.2d704(1980) (affirmingagreementtolimitotherwiseprotectedspeechaspartofemploymentwithgovernmentagency);ParagouldCablevision,Inc.v.CityofParagould,Ark.,930F.2d1310,1315(8thCir.1991)(“Byenteringintothefranchiseagreement,however,Cablevisioneffectivelybargainedawaysomeofitsfreespeechrights....Cablevisioncannotnowinvokethefirstamendmenttorecapturesurrenderedrights.”);InreGeorgeF.Nord

13of18

Bldg.Corp.,129F.2d173,176(7thCir.1942)(“Certainly,onewhohasbeenapartytoaproceedingwhereinaconsentdecreehasbeenenteredandwhohasbeenapartytothatconsent,isinnopositiontoclaimthatsuchdecreerestrictshisfreedomofspeech.Hehaswaivedhisrightandgivenhisconsenttoitslimitationswithinthescopeofthatdecree.”);Perriconev.Perricone,292Conn.187,205n.18,972A.2d666,679(2009)(collectingcasesstatingthesame).[25]

Insupportoftheirclaim,Cleopatraprincipallyarguesauthoritythataddresstwofactualpostures.First,thereareopinionsthatrejectblanketfreespeechinfringementsastothenewsorganizationsbasedongovernmentactiononthegroundsofsecrecyorprivacy.Procter&GambleCo.v.BankersTrustCo.,78F.3d219(6thCir.1996);MatterofProvidenceJournalCo.,820F.2d1342(1stCir.1986).Second,thereareopinionsrejectingfreespeechinfringementsarisingfromdefamationclaimsthatarefoundtobe“sovagueandimprecise”astomakeitimpossibleto“fairlydeterminewhatfuturespeechispermitted.”Metro.OperaAss'n,Inc.v.Local100,HotelEmployees&Rest.EmployeesInt'lUnion,239F.3d172,178(2dCir.2001);seealsoSuperiorFilms,Inc.v.Dep'tofEduc.ofStateofOhio,Div.ofFilmCensorship,346U.S.587,74S.Ct.286,98L.Ed.329(1954);Crosbyv.BradstreetCo.,312F.2d483(2dCir.1963) .

*19Neitherofthesefactualstrandsispersuasivebecausenoneofthemaddressthefactsasestablishedhere.TheinjunctionsoughtbyPlaintiffsintheinstantactionisgroundedinaprivatecontractbetweensignatoriestotheConsentOrder,ofwhichPylewasoneandunderwhichhewaivedcertainrights.[26]InsofarastheConsentOrderlimitstheactionsofthoseacting“inconcertorparticipation”withtheConsentOrder'ssignatories,thelimitationsarenarrowandspecific,including,interalia,limitingtheuseofthe“name,likeness,portrait,picture,performanceorbiographicalmaterialof[VanZant]or[Gaines],”(ConsentOrderat2),and,asapplicableonlytothesignatories,preventing“exploitationinwholeorinpartofthehistoryoftheLynyrdSkynyrdband”withoutcertainpriorwrittenapprovals,(ConsentOrderat6).Thesearenotblanketprohibitionsandarenotvagueorimpreciseprohibitions;anindividualcouldreadtheConsentOrderandunderstandwhatactionsareorarenotpermissibleunderitsstrictures.

ThesearestricturesthatPyleagreedtoandwhichCleopatra,uponreceivingtheConsentOrder,becameawareof.ProhibitingCleopatrafrommakingaparticularmovieinaparticularfashionisnotthekindofrestraintthatcourtshavedesignedpriorrestraint,thekindthat“den[ies]useofaforuminadvanceofactualexpression...inwhichtheexerciseofsuchauthoritywasboundedbypreciseandclearstandards.”Se.Promotions,Ltd.v.Conrad,420U.S.546,553(1975).CleopatrahasnotbeenblanketprohibitedfrommakingamovieaboutLynyrdSkynyrd,aboutproducingamovieaboutthe1977planecrashwhilehiringactorstoplayVanZantandGaines,orfromproducingamoviethatincludesPyle.Rather,CleopatraisprohibitedfrommakingitsmovieaboutLynyrdSkynyrdwhenitspartnersubstantivelycontributestotheprojectinawaythat,inthepast,hewillinglybargainedawaytheveryrighttodojustthat;inanyothercircumstance,Cleopatrawouldbeas“freeasabird”tomakeanddistributeitswork.[27]LYNYRDSKYNYRD,FreeBird,onPRONOUNCED‘LĚH-’NÉRD‘SKIN-'NÉRD(MCARecords1973);seeHomeworxFranchising,LLCv.Meadows,09Civ.11(DAK),2009WL211918,at*1–2(D.UtahJan.26,2009)(findingnon-signatorytoacontractboundbycontract'stermsaspartofajointenterprisewithsignatory,evenwheninfringementwouldotherwisehaveviolatedfreespeechrights)(citingParagouldCablevision,930F.2dat1315).TheFirstAmendmentisnotinfringedbysuchprivateandvoluntarydecisions,andtheCourthastheauthoritytoprotectthosepreviouslybargained-forrights.SeeConclusionsofLawSectionIII.2supra.

IV.Plaintiffs'ActionAgainstPyleisMoot

*20TheevidenceadducedhasestablishedthatPyleisnotinpossessionoftheFilmandhasnolegalrighttodistributeorreleaseit.(SeeTr.146:13–147:25.)Assuch,PyleisunabletocomplywiththereliefPlaintiffsseek,namelytopreventtheproduction,distribution,anddisplayoftheFilm.(SeeComplaint82.)Accordingly,theinjunctionreliefsoughtundertheComplaint'sFirstCauseofActionmustbedismissedastoPyleasmoot.SeeBlackburnv.Goodwin,608F.2d919,925(2dCir.1979) (holdingthatsincedefendant“doesnothavetheofficialcapacitynecessarytoenablehimtocomplywiththeinjunctivereliefsought...theclaimfordeclaratoryreliefisnowmoot”);Doev.Coumo,No.08Civ.8055(LAP),2009WL3123045,at*5(S.D.N.Y.Sept.29,2009)(“Doe'sclaimsinhisproposedSACwouldfailsincenoneoftheseproposeddefendantsisinapositiontograntDoethereliefheseeks.Therefore,Doe'sclaimsforinjunctiveanddeclaratoryreliefwouldbemoot....”).

V.PlaintiffsareEntitledtoAttorneys'FeesandCosts

[30][31]Plaintiffsrequestthattheybeawardedreasonableattorneys'feesshouldtheyprevailintheinstantaction.TheSecondCircuithasfoundthat:“UnderNewYorklaw,acontractthatprovidesforanawardofreasonableattorneys'feestotheprevailingpartyinanactiontoenforcethecontractisenforceableifthe

14of18

contractuallanguageissufficientlyclear.”MetroFound.Contractors,Inc.v.ArchIns.Co.,551Fed.Appx.607,610(2dCir.2014)(quotingNetJetsAviation,Inc.v.LHCComms.,LLC,537F.3d168,175(2dCir.2008)).Furthermore,“itisappropriateforthecourtalsotoawardthereasonablecostsofprosecutingthecontempt,includingattorney'sfees,iftheviolationofthedecreeisfoundtohavebeenwillful.”VuittonetFilsS.A.,592F.2dat130(citingW.E.BassettCo.v.Revlon,Inc.,435F.2d656,664–65&n.5(2dCir.1970) ).

[32]Here,thelanguageoftheConsentOrderwithregardtoattorneys'feesisclear:“Anamountequaltoactualandreasonableattorneys'feesshallbeawardedtotheprevailingpartyinanyproceedingbroughttoenforcethetermsandconditionsofthisorder.”(ConsentOrder34.)Asestablishedbythefactsabove,DefendantswereawareoftherestrictiveprovisionsoftheConsentOrderbyJuly2016andcontinuedtomaketheirfilm,incleardisregard,untiltheinstantaction.Accordingly,Plaintiffsareentitledtoanawardreasonableattorneys'feesandcosts.

Conclusion

Basedonthefindingsoffactandconclusionoflawsetforthabove,PlaintiffshavemettheirburdenofproofwithregardtotheirclaimforapermanentinjunctionagainstCleopatraandforreasonableattorneys'feesandcostsastoDefendants.Accordingly,judgmentwillbeenteredinfavorofPlaintiffs,andDefendants'outstandingmotionsforsummaryjudgmentandjudgmentasamatteroflawaredismissedasmoot.

ThepartiesaredirectedtojointlysubmitaproposedredactedversionofthisOpinionandOrderconsistentwiththeProtectiveOrderenteredinthiscase,(Dkt.No.9),tobefiledpublicallyortonotifytheCourtthatnonearenecessarywithinoneweekofreceiptofthisOpinionandOrder.

Itissoordered.

Footnotes

[1]

Allcitationsto“Tr.”refertothetrialtranscript.Referencestodepositiontranscriptswhichincludeportionstowhichapartyhasobjectedindicatestheobjectionhasbeenoverruled.

[2]

PereratestifiedthatheisnotawareofortransactedbusinessthroughanentityentitledCleopatraFilms.(SeePereraDep.11:19–12:20;Tr.118:22–24.)Documentaryevidencedemonstratesthatsuchanentityinfactdidexistin2016and,atminimum,wasreceivinglegalrepresentationatthetimeofPlaintiffs'firstceaseanddesistletter,discussedinfra.(SeeDefs.'Exs.2–3(notingthatCleopatraRecordswas“d/b/a/CleopatraFilms”).)Whilethepreciselegalrelationshipbetweenthetwoentitieswasnotadducedattrial,Perera'srecollectionisincorrect.

[3]

Pereraco-ownsCleopatrawithhiswife.(PereraDep.8:2–14.)

[4]

Perera'sgossameryexplanationthathebelievedit“agoodideatomakeamovieabouttheLynyrdSkynyrdplanecrash”becausehesaw“lotsofBehindtheMusic,”“feltitwouldbeagoodhistoricaldocumenttoreleaseamovieaboutarockbandonaplane,becauseitseemslikethereissomeinterestinmovies...aboutaplane,”andthat“includingarockbandontheplanewoulddefinitelybeofinterest,”suggeststheremightbesomethingmoretotheFilm'soriginstory.(Tr.119:5–12.)

[5]

Pyletestifiedthat,attheJune2016meeting,hedescribedtheConsentOrdertoPereraandthat,whilePyledidnothaveacopyoftheConsentOrder,headvisedPereraonewasonfileinNewYork;itappearsthat,atthattime,PyledidnotstatethedetailsabouttherestrictionsresultingfromtheConsentOrder'sexistence.(SeePyleDep.62:14–64:5.)

[6]

Pererastatedthatthechoiceofthetitle“FreeBird”hadnothingtodowiththeLynyrdSkynyrdsongbut,rather,wasbecauseof“anairplaneintheskyandabird.”(Tr.163:20–21.)Suchanexplanationisnotcredible.

15of18

[7]

AtthetimeofreceiptoftheConsentOrderaroundJuly22,2016,Cleopatrahasspentapproximately$7,000inthedevelopmentofitsFilm.(SeeTr.171:13–172:23,175:14–177:20;Pls.'Ex.53.)

[8]

PereratestifiedattrialthatheneitherrecalledprovidingacopyoftheConsentOrdertoCohn,(Tr.180:22–181:2),thecontentsoftheConsentOrder,(Tr.134:11–15,160:9–22),andtheceaseanddesistletter,(Tr.160:23–161:22).GiventheinconsistenciesofthistestimonyinconjunctionbothwithPerera'spriortestimonyandotheradmittedtestimonialevidence,thatversionoftheeventsisnotcredible.

[9]

PhonecallingandtextingwerePyle'sprincipalmediaofcommunicationbecausePyledoesnotownorknowhowtouseacomputeranddoesnotsendorreceiveemailmessages,practicescorroboratedbytheevidence.(SeePyleDep.45:18–46:7.)

[10]

CohncontendsthathedidsubstantiveindependentresearchfortheFilm,althoughhedidnotrecallwhetherhemaintainednotesonanyofthatresearch,asidefromCohn'sinitialmeetingwithPyle.(SeeCohnDep.32:5–35:21;seealsoTr.188:3–12.)Atminimum,nosubstantiveevidenceofindependentresearchbyCohnhasbeenpresented,inwhichcircumstancesCohn'sclaimisdifficulttoacceptbuttrue.

[11]

Otheraspectsofthescriptarelessconcretelyinaccurate,suchasthedepictionofthe1977planecrashpilotsconsumingalcoholpriortotheflight,althoughtheFederalAviationAdministration'spost-crashreportdidnotidentifydrugsoralcoholusebythepilotsinthereport'stoxicologyfindings.(ComparePls.'Ex.62,atP001128,withPls.'Ex.13,atP000078.)

[12]

Assuch,PereraandCohn'scontentionsthatPylewasrepeatedlysolicitedforinformationto“makehimfeelgood,”(CohnDep.49:11),orto“keepeverythingfriendlyandpositiveandmovethingsalong,”(Tr.199:14),arenotaccepted.

[13]

Pereraexplainedthatheselectedthenewtitle“StreetSurvivors”becauseitwas“justanothergoodtitle,”notbecauseofanyconnectiontotheidenticallynamedLynyrdSkynyrdalbumtitle.(Tr.164:18.)Thetitlewaschangedbecauseoftheinitialceaseanddesistletter.(SeeTr.138:18–20.)AstheFilmis,inmajorpart,aboutaplanecrash,thetitleappearstohavebeenselectedtoevoketheemotionalimpactoftheband.

[14]

OtheractionsweretakenfollowingtheinstigationofPlaintiffs'lawsuittoextricatePyle'sinvolvementfromtheFilm,suchaseditingtheFilm'slistingontheInternetMovieDatabasewebsitetoremovePyle'snameasaco-writerinJune2017.(ComparePls.'Ex.54,andPls.'Ex.55,withPls.'Ex.56;seeTr.231:19–22.)

[15]

Cleopatra'sfilmingandproductioncostsforitsFilmuptoaroundtheinstantactionareapproximately$1.2million.(SeeDefs.'Ex.13;Tr.145:24–146:1.)

[16]

DefendantsarguethattherecentamendmentstoFed.R.Civ.P.37(e)anditsadvisorynoteslimitacourt'sabilitytoexerciseinherentpowerstoremedyspoliation.However,evenafterthe2015amendments,courtshavecontinuedtorecognizepowerstosanctionthedestructionofevidenceoutsideofRule37(e)because“‘[c]ertainimpliedpowersmustnecessarilyresulttoourCourtsofjusticefromthenatureoftheirinstitution,’powers‘whichcannotbedispensedwithinaCourt,becausetheyarenecessarytotheexerciseofallothers.”CAT3,LLCv.BlackLineage,Inc.,164F.Supp.3d488,497(S.D.N.Y.2016) (quotingChambersv.NASCQ,Inc.,501U.S.32,43,111S.Ct.2123,115L.Ed.2d27(1991));seealsoHsuehv.NewYorkStateDep'tofFin.Servs.,No.15Civ.3401(PAC),2017WL1194706,at*4(S.D.N.Y.Mar.31,2017)(collectingcases).AsRule37(e)doesapplyhere,however,thereisnoneedtorelyonsuchpowers.

16of18

[17]

Evenwithoutasubpoena,thevalidityofwhichCleopatrahascontestedandwhichisdiscussedinfra.

[18]

Cleopatra'scounsel'scommentswerealwaystruthful,though,inretrospect,notdirectlyalignedasresponsestoPlaintiff'scounsel'squeriesorthediscussionbeforetheCourt.(CompareTr.104:6–105:10(stating,afterdiscussingwhetherCohnwaspreviouslypresentinavideo-fedtestimonyroom,that“he's[Cohn]notpresent”intheroom),withTr.168:19–169:2(acknowledgingthenextdaythatCohnhadbeenintheroomearlierbutleftjustbeforetestimonybeganandtheearlierstatementwasmade).)

[19]

Cleopatrahascitedthreecasesinsupport:BergenlineProp.Grp.,LLCv.Coto,No.A-0259-14T2,2015WL7428755,at*4(N.J.Super.Ct.App.Div.Nov.10,2015)(affirmingatrialcourt'sfindingofnomeetingofthemindsafterapartyepeatedlyrejectingleaseagreementandthennotating“signingunderprotets”);ExparteWright,443So.2d40,42(Ala.1983)(failingtofinda“meetingoftheminds”whennewemploymentcontractsweresigned“underprotestandunderduress”);ChurchMut.Ins.Co.v.Kleingardner,2Misc.3d676,680–81,774N.Y.S.2d265(Sup.Ct.2003)(findingsimilarbutinthecontextofapplyingtheNewYorkUniformCommercialCode).

[20]

WhileintheoryPylewasresponsibleunderthetermsoftheConsentOrdertoinformanypartywithwhomheworkedaboutthestricturesoftheConsentOrder,(seeConsentOrder26),itisunestablishedand,givenPyle'sfickledevotiontothetermsoftheConsentOrderinthepast,(see,e.g.,Pls.'Exs.4,6),unlikelythattheConsentOrder'sdetailswerediscussedwithCleopatrapriortoPlaintiffs'2016cease-and-desistletter.

[21]

Cleopatra'slettertoPyleonMay9,2017,tovoidtheir2016contractandpayPyleunderthetitle“HistoricalConsultant”doesnothingtoeliminatealltheassistancePylehadtothatpointprovidedinsupportoftheFilmanditsproductionorthat,whileprovidingassistance,PylewassettoreceiveapercentageoftheFilm'snetreceipts.SeeFindingsofFactSectionsIV,VIIIsupra.

[22]

CleopatraarguesthattheirFilmisprotectedunderthefairusedoctrine.However,theaffirmativedefenseisirrelevantbecausePlaintiffsclaimisnotundertrademarklaw,butrathercontractlaw.Even,arguendo,suchanaffirmativedefensewereapplicable,itstillmustfail,asthefactsestablishedindicatethatDefendants'useoftheLynyrdSkynyrdnameandhistoryherewasnotdoneingoodfaith.SeeKelly–Brownv.Winfrey,717F.3d295,308(2dCir.2013)(asuccessfulfairusedefensetoatrademarkinfringementclaimrequiresadefendanttoprovethattheusewasmade(1)otherthanasamark,(2)inadescriptivesense,and(3)ingoodfaith).

[23]

ThepartieshavedisputedPlaintiffs'seriousnessandcommitmenttomakingtheirownfilmaboutLynyrdSkynyrd—inwhichcase,Plaintiffargues,Cleopatra'sfilmmightcauseconfusionandfinancialharmtoPlaintiffs'film.AsCleopatranoted,however,thereisreasonablelikelihoodthatCleopatra'sfilmwouldratherboostthesalesofLynyrdSkynyrdmusicandticketsalesforanysubsequentmoviesabouttheband;whethertherewouldorwouldnotbeconfusionhasnotbeenestablishedbyeitherparty.Theeconomicinterplaybetweenthetwoisirrelevanthowever,sincethedisputeisdoesnotneedresolutiontoestablishtheirreparableharmwroughtbytheproductionoftheFilminviolationoftheConsentOrder.

[24]

Cleopatra'scitedSecondCircuitauthorityareunavailing.InAllensCreek/CorbettsGlenPres.Grp.,Inc.v.West,2Fed.Appx.162,165&n.1(2dCir.2001),thecourtacceptedalachesdefenseexpresslybecauseofadelaybothbyplaintiffinbringingalawsuitanddelayinmovingforaninjunctionafterbringingsuit.Cleopatracanonlyargueadelayintheformerhere.AndinConopco,Inc.v.CampbellSoupCo.,95F.3d187,192(2dCir.1996),thecourtaffirmedtheapplicationofalachesdefensewhereplaintiffwaitedfiveyearsafterlearningoftheinfringingadvertisingcampaignwhiledefendantcontinuedtoaircommercials.ThefactsavailabletoCleopatrahereastoPlaintiffs'knowledgeandperiodofdelayaremeaningfullydisimilar.

17of18

©2017eDiscoveryAssistantLLC.NoclaimtooriginalU.S.GovernmentWorks.

[25]

Cf.ErieTelecomm.,Inc.v.CityofErie,Pa.,853F.2d1084,1096(3dCir.1988)(holdingthatconstitutionalrights“maybecontractuallywaivedwherethefactsandcircumstancessurroundingthewaivermakeitclearthatthepartyforegoingitsrightshasdonesoofitsownvolition,withfullunderstandingoftheconsequencesofitswaiver”andthat“volitionandunderstandingaredeemedtobe,andindeedhavebeenheldtobe,present,wherepartiestothecontracthavebargainingequalityandhavenegotiatedthetermsofthecontract,andwherethewaivingpartyisadvisedbycompetentcounselandengagedinothercontractnegotiations”).

[26]

CleopatrahasarguedthatPyle,bysigningtheConsentOrder“underprotest,”didnotwaivehisFirstAmendmentrights.However,asdescribedabove,thecircumstancessurroundingandfollowingPyle'ssigningoftheConsentOrderindicatesthatheknewatthetimeforwhathehadbargainedandhewassatisfied.SeeConclusionsofLawSectionIII.1supra.Cleopatra'scitedauthority,Marinacciov.Boardman,No.02Civ.00831(NPM),2005WL928631(N.D.N.Y.Apr.19,2005),demonstratesthatincircumstanceswhereapersonclearlyexpressesobjectionstohisattorneybeforesigningsomething“underprotest”andthewaiverisotherwisenot“veryclear,”findingwaiverisdisfavored.Seeid.,2005WL928631,at*16.Nosuchambiguityexistshere.

[27]

AuthorityputforwardbyCleopatratoarguethatCleopatradidnotwaiveitsFirstAmendmentrightsdonotaddressthepresentsituationwhereaConsentOrderwhichclearlyprohibitsactinginconcertorparticipationwithsignatoriesinparticularfashionswasknowntoCleopatra.Novalogic,Inc.v.ActivisionBlizzard,41F.Supp.3d885(C.D.Cal.2013),addressestherelationshipbetweenaprivatecontractanditsimpactonathirdparty.However,theNovalogiccourtcouldnotfindhowthecontract'sprovisionshadanimpactonthird-partiesorsubsequentlicensingagreements;here,theConsentOrderexplicitlyenvisionsprohibitionsonsignatories'interactionswiththird-parties.Seeid.at903.AndRuddEquip.Co.,Inc.v.JohnDeereConstr.&ForestryCo.,834F.3d589,595(6thCir.2016),discusseswhetheranindividualcanwaivethepublic'srighttocourtfilingswhensealingdocuments;theopennessofthecourtsisnotinquestionhere.

EndofDocument.

18of18