Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 111 Filed 03/02/16 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:2203

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Francis Malofiy, Esq.

Francis Alexander, LLC
280 N. Providence Rd. | Suite 105
Media, PA 19063
T: (215) 500-1000; F: (215) 500-1005
E: francis@francisalexander.com
Attorney for Plaintiff
Glen L. Kulik, Esq. (SBN 082170)
Kulik Gottesman & Siegel LLP
15303 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1400
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
T: (310) 557-9200; F: (310) 557-0224
E: gkulik@kgslaw.com
Attorney for Plaintiff

11
12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14

MICHAEL SKIDMORE, as Trustee for

15 the RANDY CRAIG WOLFE TRUST,
16

v.

18

20
21
22
23
24

Hon. R. Gary Klausner

Plaintiff,

17

19

Case No. 15-cv-03462 RGK (AGRx)

LED ZEPPELIN; JAMES PATRICK

PAGE; ROBERT ANTHONY PLANT;
JOHN PAUL JONES; SUPER HYPE
PUBLISHING, INC.; WARNER MUSIC
GROUP CORP., Parent of
WARNER/CHAPPELL MUSIC, INC.;
ATLANTIC RECORDING
CORPORATION; RHINO
ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY,

DECLARATION OF GLEN L.
KULIK IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE
APPLICATION FOR A ONE-WEEK
EXTENSION TO RESPOND TO
SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION
[Filed concurrently with Application and
Proposed Order]

25

Defendants.

26
27
28
__

Case No. 15-cv-03462 RGK (AGRx)

Declaration of Glen L. Kulik Re: Application

for a One-Week Extension to File Opposition

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 111 Filed 03/02/16 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:2204

DECLARATION OF GLEN L. KULIK

I, Glen L. Kulik, declare as follows:

1.

I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California and

before this court and a member of the firm of Kulik Gottesman & Siegel LLP, local

counsel for the Plaintiff in this action. I have personal knowledge of the facts

recited below and if called as a witness could and would testify competently to each

such fact.

2.

On August 17, 2015, the Court entered a Scheduling Order (Doc. No.

79) setting a discovery cutoff date of February 11, 2016 and a deadline to file

10

motions of February 25, 2016. The present summary judgment motion was filed by

11

defendants on the last possible day and set for hearing on the first possible date

12

affording Plaintiff the bare minimum amount of time to respond.

13

3.

Although written discovery was served by Plaintiff on October 13,

14

2015, Defendants did not respond in any meaningful way until January. They would

15

not produce any documents until the court entered a protective order, which did not

16

occur until December 28, 2015. Thereafter, in January, Defendants produced 40,000

17

pages of materials which took the entire month of January to review. Further, when

18

it was determined that many crucial documents had not been produced, Defendants

19

have continued to produce documents right up until the last two weeks. Plaintiff

20

contends they still have not produced everything.

21

4.

While Defendants initially responded to interrogatories on November

22

23, 2015, the responses contained mostly objections. It was not until Defendants

23

served supplemental answers to interrogatories on January 5, 2016 that Plaintiff had

24

important information that was not disclosed by Defendants in their Initial

25

Disclosures or at any other time. Thus, it was not until January 2016 that Plaintiff

26

had documents and meaningful interrogatory answers from Defendants.

27
28

5.

With the documents and information in hand, the entire month of

January up to the discovery cutoff date on February 11, 2016 was consumed with
1__
Case No. 15-cv-03462 RGK (AGRx)

Declaration of Glen L. Kulik Re: Application

for a One-Week Extension to File Opposition

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 111 Filed 03/02/16 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:2205

both sides taking depositions including two separate trips to Europe (Defendants

would not produce the band members for depositions in the United States) and in

several locations all over the United States. At least nine depositions were taken in

London, England; Memphis Tennessee; Boston, Massachusetts; Santa Barbara,

California; and Los Angeles, California between January 7, 2016 and February 10,

2016.

6.

The deadline for expert reports to be served was shortly before the

discovery cut-off date. Plaintiff produced detailed and complex reports from five

separate experts located all over the country, and this consumed weeks of working

10

with the experts and fighting to get from defendants the information and

11

documentation they needed. In contrast, Defendants did not produce any expert

12

reports, claiming that they did not have to produce anything until 30 days after

13

Plaintiffs reports were produced. Thus, when the current motion was filed, Plaintiff

14

did not have the benefit of seeing any expert report from the Defendants.

15

7.

Plaintiff has worked persistently and diligently throughout the litigation

16

to get this case to trial as soon as possible, against formidable adversaries who have

17

unlimited resources whose main strategy has been to delay and make the process as

18

burdensome as possible for Plaintiff and his principal attorney, Francis Malofiy, who

19

is part of a two-attorney firm based in Philadelphia.

20

Executed on March 2, 2016 at Sherman Oaks, California.

21

I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of

22

America that the foregoing is true and correct.

23

/s/ Glen L. Kulik

Glen L. Kulik

24
25
26
27
28

2__
Case No. 15-cv-03462 RGK (AGRx)

Declaration of Glen L. Kulik Re: Application

for a One-Week Extension to File Opposition