throbber
Case 2:19-cv-08535-TJH-AS Document 33 Filed 02/18/20 Page 1 of 14 Page ID #:275
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`Jeffrey A. LeVee (State Bar No. 125863)
`Brent D. Sokol (State Bar No. 167537)
`jlevee@jonesday.com
`JONES DAY
`555 South Flower Street
`Fiftieth Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071.2452
`Telephone: +1.213.489.3939
`Facsimile: +1.213.243.2539
`Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant
`ENTRAVISION COMMUNICATIONS
`CORPORATION
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`GLOBAL MUSIC RIGHTS, LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`ENTRAVISION
`COMMUNICATIONS
`CORPORATION,
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 2:19-cv-08535-TJH (ASx)
`
`DEFENDANT AND
`COUNTERCLAIMANT
`ENTRAVISION
`COMMUNICATIONS
`CORPORATION’S REPLY TO
`GMR’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION
`TO STAY
`Date: March 2, 2020
`Time: Taken Under Submission
`Judge: Hon. Terry J. Hatter, Jr.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:19-cv-08535-TJH (ASx)
`ENTRAVISION'S REPLY TO GMR’S
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAY
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-08535-TJH-AS Document 33 Filed 02/18/20 Page 2 of 14 Page ID #:276
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 5
`I.
`II. ARGUMENT .................................................................................................. 6
`A.
`This Action and the RMLC Action Involve the Same Claims ............. 6
`B. GMR’s Antitrust Violations Arise From Its Leverage of
`Copyright Ownership To Control Areas Outside Its Limited
`Monopoly And These Misuse Issues Are Before the Court in the
`RMLC Action ....................................................................................... 8
`C. A Stay Will Not Prejudice GMR ........................................................ 12
`III. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:19-cv-08535-TJH (ASx)
`ENTRAVISION'S REPLY TO GMR’S
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAY
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-08535-TJH-AS Document 33 Filed 02/18/20 Page 3 of 14 Page ID #:277
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`A & M Records v. Napster,
`239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001) ......................................................................... 9, 10
`
`Altera Corp. v. Clear Logic, Inc.,
`424 F.3d 1079 (9th Cir. 2005) ............................................................................. 11
`
`Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp.,
`658 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2011) ............................................................................. 11
`
`Broad. Music, Inc. v. Hearst/ABC Viacom,
`746 F. Supp. 320 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) .................................................................... 8, 9
`
`Clark v. Amica Mutual Ins. Co.,
`2013 WL 12171876 (E.D. Wash. May 21, 2013) ................................................. 8
`
`Hangarter v. Provident Life and Accident Ins. Co.,
`373 F.3d 998 (9th Cir. 2004) ................................................................................. 7
`
`Landmark Tech., LLC v. iRobot Corp.,
`2014 WL 486836 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 24, 2014) ......................................................... 6
`
`Lasercomb Am. v. Reynolds,
`911 F. 2d 970 (4th Cir. 1990) ................................................................................ 9
`
`Levya v. Certified Grocers of CA, Ltd.,
`593 F.2d 857 (9th Cir. 1979) ............................................................................... 13
`
`Omega v. Costco Wholesale Corp.,
`776 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 2015) ....................................................................... 8, 9, 11
`
`Practice Mgmt. Info. Corp. v. The Am. Med. Ass’n,
`121 F.3d (9th Cir. 1997) ........................................................................................ 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:19-cv-08535-TJH (ASx)
`ENTRAVISION'S REPLY TO GMR’S
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAY
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-08535-TJH-AS Document 33 Filed 02/18/20 Page 4 of 14 Page ID #:278
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Radio Music License Committee, Inc. v. Global Music Rights,
`LLC, No. 2:16-cv-06076, ECF No. 64-1 ............................................................ 10
`
`Stebbins v. Geico Ins. Agency,
`2019 WL 281281 (D. Nev. Jan. 22, 2019) ............................................................ 7
`
`Tavakoli v. Allstate Property & Cas. Ins. Co.,
`2012 WL 1903666 (W.D. Wash. May 25, 2012) .................................................. 7
`
`Wi-LAN Inc. v. LG Elecs. Inc.,
`382 F. Supp. 3d 1012 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2019) ................................................... 7
`
`ZeniMax Media, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd.,
`2017 WL 4805524 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 25, 2017) .................................................... 13
`
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-08535-TJH-AS Document 33 Filed 02/18/20 Page 5 of 14 Page ID #:279
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The logic of a modest stay of this action is unassailable: there is a prior
`
`related case—the RMLC Action—in which the complex antitrust claims raised in
`
`this action are already being litigated, discovery is active and ongoing, and the
`
`Court has set a discovery cutoff date and pretrial conference. By contrast, in this
`
`action, discovery has not yet begun, and the Court has not even scheduled the Rule
`
`26 conference.
`
`Once the Court has resolved the antitrust claims in the RMLC Action, this
`
`lawsuit literally may be over because a finding that GMR has violated the antitrust
`
`laws in the RMLC Action would necessarily carry over to this action and bar
`
`GMR’s affirmative claims. Likewise, Entravision has agreed that a finding in favor
`
`of GMR on the facts presented in RMLC’s antitrust claims would bind Entravision
`
`in this action. What is the logic of forcing Entravision—one of thousands of
`
`members of RMLC—to actively litigate its antitrust claims in this action while the
`
`RMLC Action is heading towards a resolution? GMR never explains, beyond the
`
`implied fact that GMR wants Entravision to have to spend a lot of money on legal
`
`fees to put pressure on Entravision to settle.
`
`GMR will not suffer any prejudice if a stay of the case is issued, whereas
`
`Entravision would be prejudiced if a stay is not issued. For all these reasons,
`
`Entravision urges the Court to grant this motion.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:19-cv-08535-TJH (ASx)
`ENTRAVISION'S REPLY TO GMR’S
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAY
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-08535-TJH-AS Document 33 Filed 02/18/20 Page 6 of 14 Page ID #:280
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`
`A. This Action and the RMLC Action Involve the Same Claims.
`
`GMR argues that “[t]he RMLC action does not overlap at all with GMR’s
`
`copyright infringement claims.” Opp. at 7. The Court has already rejected this
`
`assertion. See ECF No. 25 at 1 (finding two actions related because there are
`
`“substantially related or similar questions of law and fact” and “would entail
`
`substantial duplication of labor if heard by different judges”).
`
`Nor does Entravision “seek[] to use the deliberately engineered similarities
`
`between [Entravision’s antitrust counterclaims and RMLC’s antitrust claims] to
`
`stall GMR’s prosecution of this action.” Opp. at 7. The resolution of the antitrust
`
`claims in the RMLC Action will be outcome determinative to this action. If this
`
`Court determines that GMR has violated the antitrust laws as alleged in the RMLC
`
`Action, then GMR will also be barred from enforcing a copyright claim against
`
`Entravision. Since Entravision has agreed to be bound by the determination in the
`
`RMLC Action, proceeding with this case would lead to duplicative and unnecessary
`
`litigation. As such, judicial efficiency warrants a stay. See Landmark Tech., LLC
`
`v. iRobot Corp., 2014 WL 486836, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 24, 2014) (“Staying a case
`
`at an early juncture can advance judicial efficiency and maximize the likelihood
`
`that neither the [c]ourt nor the parties expend their assets addressing invalid
`
`claims.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
`
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-08535-TJH-AS Document 33 Filed 02/18/20 Page 7 of 14 Page ID #:281
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`GMR asks that the Court bifurcate the antitrust and copyright infringement
`
`claims, a decision “committed to the sound discretion of the court.” Hangarter v.
`
`Provident Life and Accident Ins. Co., 373 F.3d 998, 1021 (9th Cir. 2004) (affirming
`
`district court’s refusal to bifurcate where there was a substantial overlap in evidence
`
`between the claims at issue). “Nonetheless [bifurcation is] the exception, not the
`
`rule.” Tavakoli v. Allstate Property & Cas. Ins. Co., 2012 WL 1903666, at *7
`
`(W.D. Wash. May 25, 2012). Id. at *9 (declining to bifurcate trial or discovery
`
`because “[b]ifurcation is not likely to make the resolution of this matter more
`
`economical or more expedient”). Given the need for the Court to center its judicial
`
`resources around the antitrust counterclaims and the related misuse defense,
`
`bifurcation is not the exception here.
`
`GMR’s position that bifurcation of the two claims would somehow keep the
`
`focus on the “real issue” undermines the seriousness of the antitrust claims lodged
`
`against it. Entravision’s antitrust claims are not the tail wagging the proverbial
`
`“copyright infringement dog”. It is in fact the other way around. GMR’s antitrust
`
`violations are at the forefront of this litigation and the RMLC Action. Courts do not
`
`separate claims when they are so intertwined, particularly in the beginning stages of
`
`litigation. See Stebbins v. Geico Ins. Agency, 2019 WL 281281, at *4 (D. Nev. Jan.
`
`22, 2019) (declining bifurcation to avoid “wast[ing] judicial resources” where the
`
`claims are intertwined such that it would “require the parties to present much of the
`
`same evidence twice, have witnesses testify twice, make many of the same
`
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-08535-TJH-AS Document 33 Filed 02/18/20 Page 8 of 14 Page ID #:282
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`arguments twice, and pay the cost of litigation twice”); see also Wi-LAN Inc. v. LG
`
`Elecs. Inc., 382 F. Supp. 3d 1012, 1026 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2019) (declining to
`
`bifurcate defendant’s antitrust counterclaims because the case is in its initial
`
`stages); Clark v. Amica Mutual Ins. Co., 2013 WL 12171876 (E.D. Wash. May 21,
`
`2013) (finding that “bifurcation of these claims would not be convenient,
`
`expeditious, or economical” . . . because “[t]here is likely to be significant factual
`
`overlap”). Based on sound principles of judicial efficiency, Entravision reaffirms
`
`its request to stay the case.
`
`B. GMR’s Antitrust Violations Arise From Its Leverage of Copyright
`Ownership To Control Areas Outside Its Limited Monopoly and
`These Misuse Issues Are Before the Court in the RMLC Action.
`Copyright misuse precludes enforcement of the copyright for the period of
`
`
`
`
`misuse. Practice Mgmt. Info. Corp. v. The Am. Med. Ass’n, 121 F.3d at 516, 520
`
`n.9 (9th Cir. 1997). Therefore, GMR may not avail itself of the Court to enforce its
`
`copyrights in this case while its present misuse continues.
`
`
`
`GMR spends large portions of its opposition to the stay motion arguing about
`
`the scope of the copyright misuse defense. But this misses the point. Antitrust
`
`violations, such as those alleged in the RMLC Action, may form the basis of
`
`copyright misuse. As Judge Wardlaw has noted, “the defense is often applied when
`
`a defendant can prove either: (1) a violation of the antitrust laws; (2) that the
`
`copyright owner otherwise illegally extended its monopoly; or (3) that the
`
`copyright owner violated the public policies underlying the copyright laws. Omega
`
`
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-08535-TJH-AS Document 33 Filed 02/18/20 Page 9 of 14 Page ID #:283
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 776 F.3d 692, 700 (9th Cir. 2015); see also Broad.
`
`Music, Inc. v. Hearst/ABC Viacom, 746 F. Supp. 320, 327-28 (S.D.N.Y. 1990)
`
`(holding that forced blanket licensing could give rise to both misuse and antitrust
`
`violations); Lasercomb Am. v. Reynolds, 911 F. 2d 970, 977-78 (4th Cir. 1990)
`
`(“A patent or copyright is often regarded as a limited monopoly—an exception to
`
`the general public policy against restraints of trade. Since antitrust law is the
`
`statutory embodiment of that public policy, there is an understandable association
`
`of antitrust law with the misuse.”). The Ninth Circuit has even suggested that under
`
`certain circumstances a “unilateral refusal to license a copyright may constitute
`
`wrongful exclusionary conduct giving rise to a claim of misuse….” A & M
`
`Records v. Napster, 239 F.3d 1004, 1027 n.8 (9th Cir. 2001). Of course, the factual
`
`underpinnings of the anticompetitive behavior don’t need to rise to the level of an
`
`antitrust violation to constitute misuse. Omega, 776 F.3d at 700. But if they do, as
`
`alleged here and in the RMLC Action, they may constitute copyright misuse.
`
`
`
`By any definition, GMR’s blanket licensing structure is classic copyright
`
`misuse and violates the antitrust laws. See BMI, 746 F. Supp. 320 (finding both
`
`antitrust and misuse properly alleged and, if proven, would constitute misuse).
`
`RMLC has challenged the anticompetitive nature of GMR’s actions, including
`
`GMR’s leveraging of control beyond the copyrights it owns through its blanket
`
`licensing scheme, and these issues will be resolved in the RMLC Action. RMLC
`
`Action, ECF 163 at ¶ 37-43. GMR’s conduct has raised significant concerns. The
`
`
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-08535-TJH-AS Document 33 Filed 02/18/20 Page 10 of 14 Page ID #:284
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`United States Department of Justice has voiced objection to these practices in cases
`
`where the blanket licensor was not even leveraging its ownership of works. Id. at ¶
`
`40. As discovery in the RMLC Action will show, GMR’s license scheme and
`
`demands give rise to copyright misuse and involve the leveraging of a limited
`
`monopoly in rights it owns to control areas outside the monopoly. Therefore,
`
`resolution of the RMLC Action, and Entravision’s agreement to abide by the
`
`decision therein on those facts, will bar or otherwise resolve GMR’s enforcement of
`
`its copyright in this action.
`
`
`
`GMR’s copyright misuse goes beyond anything an aggregator has done
`
`before, as is indicated by documents in the judicial record. See e.g., Radio Music
`
`License Committee, Inc. v. Global Music Rights, LLC, No. 2:16-cv-06076, ECF
`
`No. 64-1 at Exh. A (Interim License) (“GMR controls the right to license alone or
`
`in combination with third party(ies)….”). GMR “controls” works it doesn’t own in
`
`a variety of ways. GMR’s catalog contains tens of thousands of works. As RMLC
`
`has alleged “many, if not a majority of the works in GMR’s repertory, are in fact
`
`only fractional interests in works.” RMLC Action, ECF 163 at ¶ 40. Further, many
`
`of these works are subject to agreements between the co-owners, including
`
`agreements not to independently enter into licenses without the consent of all co-
`
`owners. Thus, by tying up GMR co-owners “fractional license” rights with the
`
`works that GMR itself owns, and mandating that they be licensed together or not at
`
`all, GMR effectively uses its blanket license to control areas outside GMR’s grant
`
`
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-08535-TJH-AS Document 33 Filed 02/18/20 Page 11 of 14 Page ID #:285
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`of monopoly See Napster, 239 F. 3d at 1027 (“The misuse defense prevents
`
`copyright holders from leveraging their limited monopoly to allow them control of
`
`areas outside the monopoly.”) (citations omitted). This reduces competition, hurts
`
`the broadcasters and in turn reduces the availability of works to the public. See
`
`Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 658 F.3d 1150, 1157 (9th Cir. 2011) (emphasis added)
`
`(holding that “[t]he copyright misuse doctrine does not prohibit using conditions to
`
`control use of copyrighted material, but it does prevent copyright holders from
`
`using conditions to stifle competition”).
`
`
`
`GMR is thus leveraging a limited monopoly in works which it purports to
`
`exclusively own to control competition in works it doesn’t own. This also supports
`
`Entravision’s unclean hands defense, as the Ninth Circuit has recognized,
`
`“copyright misuse is an unclean hands defense.” See Omega, 776 F.3d at 700 (J.
`
`Wardlaw concurrence) (citing rationale with approval); see also Altera Corp. v.
`
`Clear Logic, Inc., 424 F.3d 1079, 1090 (9th Cir. 2005) (copyright misuse is “an
`
`unclean hands defense which forbids the use of the copyright to secure an exclusive
`
`right or limited monopoly not granted by the Copyright Office and which is
`
`contrary to public policy of the grant.”).
`
`
`
`In the RMLC Action, the Court will also be presented with GMR’s
`
`agreements with its licensors that remove “GMR composers” as competitive license
`
`sources as to their co-owned works, but without any providing a right to perform
`
`these works. These practices and agreements, including the fractionalization of
`
`
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-08535-TJH-AS Document 33 Filed 02/18/20 Page 12 of 14 Page ID #:286
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`rights in a way not contemplated by the copyright grant, are another form of
`
`misuse. There are serious issues to be resolved in the RMLC Action about GMR’s
`
`ownership and licensing structure before it can proceed to enforce its copyrights.
`
`These are so substantial as to warrant stay of this case, which is “just about a small
`
`amount of money” and for which over which the “sky will not fall in” until they are
`
`resolved.
`
`C. A Stay Will Not Prejudice GMR.
`
`GMR’s assertion that a stay would “seriously prejudice GMR,” Opp. at 14, is
`
`100% inconsistent with its prior representations in the RMLC Action. In the RMLC
`
`Action, lead counsel for GMR admitted in open court that “[t]here is no urgency”
`
`here. Specifically, in trying to put off a preliminary injunction hearing against it—
`
`notwithstanding its allegation of ongoing infringement by the entire industry—
`
`GMR’s counsel represented to the Court as follows:
`
`My point is simply this. There is no urgency. There is no dire thing
`that’s going to happen . . . So this problem can be readily solved by
`the parties simply entering into an interim license . . . And we hear
`this, you know, within 90 days thereafter, or some reasonable time
`frame which would take us presumably, you know, into the spring of
`next year. And I can assure Your Honor that, you know, the sky is not
`going to fall between now and then . . . This is all about money. And
`frankly, it’s all about an extraordinary small amount of money.
`
`RMLC Action, ECF No. 64-1 at 24-26 (emphasis added). In addition, GMR
`
`conceded a lack of urgency where the “extraordinary small amount of money”
`
`amounted to $3 million, which hardly justifies a race to trial in this case.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-08535-TJH-AS Document 33 Filed 02/18/20 Page 13 of 14 Page ID #:287
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Further, Entravision has stipulated to an interim license with GMR during
`
`pendency of the action—the solution GMR proposed to the Court. Therefore,
`
`GMR has manifestly expressed its comfort on the record with “wait[ing] . . . to be
`
`vindicated” even on an industry wide basis. Opp. at 15. Significantly, time has
`
`already been spent briefing and conducting discovery in the RMLC Action, with a
`
`pre-trial conference date set to move the litigation along. Thus, the stay requested
`
`by Entravision is “within a reasonable time in relation to the urgency of the claims
`
`presented to the court.” Levya v. Certified Grocers of CA, Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 864
`
`(9th Cir. 1979).
`
`Finally, GMR waited over two years to file this lawsuit against Entravision
`
`for alleged copyright infringement. See ZeniMax Media, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs.
`
`Co., Ltd., 2017 WL 4805524, at *5 n.11 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 25, 2017) (finding that a
`
`stay would not unduly prejudice plaintiff who waited three years to enforce its
`
`intellectual property rights). As such, GMR will not be prejudiced by a stay until
`
`adjudication of the RMLC Action because “the sky is not going to fall between now
`
`and then.” RMLC Action, ECF No. 64-1 at 26.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons stated above and in Entravision’s opening brief, the Court
`
`should stay the case until adjudication of the RMLC Action.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-08535-TJH-AS Document 33 Filed 02/18/20 Page 14 of 14 Page ID #:288
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Dated: February 14, 2020
`
`JONES DAY
`
`By: /s/ Brent D. Sokol
`Brent D. Sokol
`Jeffrey A. LeVee (State Bar No. 125863)
`jlevee@jonesday.com
`Brent D. Sokol (State Bar No. 167537)
`bdsokol@jonesday.com
`JONES DAY
`555 South Flower Street
`Fiftieth Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071.2452
`Telephone: +1.213.489.3939
`Facsimile: +1.213.243.2539
`
`Attorneys for Defendant and
`Counterclaimant ENTRAVISION
`COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket