Pharrell Williams Et Al V Bri

Paul H.
Duvall (SBN 73699)

E-Mail: pduvall@kingballow.com
KING & BALLOW
6540 Lusk Blvd., Suite 250
San Diego, CA 92121
(858) 597-6000
Fax: (858) 597-6008
Attorneys for Defendants and Counter-
Claimants Frankie Christian Gaye and
Nona Marvisa Gaye
Richard S. Busch (TN BPR 014594)
(pro hac vice)
E-Mail: rbusch@kingballow.com
KING & BALLOW
315 Union Street, Suite 1100
Nashville, TN 37201
(615) 259-3456 Fax: (615) 726-5417
Claimants Frankie Christian Gaye and Nona
Marvisa Gaye

Mark L. Block (SBN 115457)
E-Mail: mblock@wargofrench.com
WARGO & FRENCH LLP
1888 Century Park East; Suite 1520
Los Angeles, CA 90067
(310) 853-6355 Fax: (310) 853-6333
Nona Marvisa Gaye
Paul N. Philips (SBN 18792)
E-Mail: pnp@pnplegal.com
The Law Offices of Paul N. Philips
9255 West Sunset Boulevard
West Hollywood, CA 90069
(323)813-1126 Fax: (323) 854-6902
Attorney for Defendant and Counter-Claimant
Marvin Gaye III

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION
PHARRELL WILLIAMS, an
individual; ROBIN THICKE, an
individual; and CLIFFORD HARRIS,
JR., an individual,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

BRIDGEPORT MUSIC, INC., a
Michigan corporation; FRANKIE
CHRISTIAN GAYE, an individual;
MARVIN GAYE III, an individual;
NONA MARVISA GAYE, an
individual; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive,

Defendants.

_______________________________

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS
Case No. CV13-06004-JAK (AGRx)

Hon. John A. Kronstadt

DECLARATION OF RICHARD S.
BUSCH IN SUPPORT OF COUNTER-
CLAIMANTS OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFFS AND COUNTER-
DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

Date: October 20, 2014
Time: 8:30 a.m.
Ctrm: 750

Action Commenced: August 15, 2013
Trial Date: February 10, 2015

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

Case 2:13-cv-06004-JAK-AGR Document 122 Filed 09/15/14 Page 1 of 125 Page ID
#:2570

1

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

DECLARATION OF RICHARD S. BUSCH
I, Richard S. Busch, declare and state:
1. I am a partner in the law firm of King & Ballow and lead counsel for
Counter-Claimants Nona Marvisa Gaye and Frankie Christian Gaye in the above
captioned matter. My application to appear and participate in this action pro hac vice
has been approved by the Court. The information contained in this Declaration is based
upon my personal knowledge. If called as a witness in this action, I could and would
testify competently to the contents of this declaration.
2. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of Counter-
Defendant Robin Thickes Supplemental Responses to Defendants and Counter-
Claimants Frankie Christian Gaye and Nona Marvisa Gayes First Set of Interrogatories.
3. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1A is a true and correct copy of Counter-
Defendant Robin Thickes Amended Supplemental Responses to Interrogatory Nos. 16
& 21 of Defendants and Counter-Claimants Frankie Christian Gaye and Nona Marvisa
Gayes First Set of Interrogatories.
4. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of the July 9, 2013
Billboard.com article, Robin Thicke on Wifes Impact on Blurred Lines and the May
7, 2013 G.Q. article, Robin Thicke on That Banned Video, in which he admits that when
creating Blurred Lines, he wanted to do something like Marvin Gayes Got to Give it
Up.
5. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of a CD containing:
a. Track 1: Robin Thickes interview with Hot 97, on or about June 11, 2013
b. Track 2: Robin Thickes interview with VH1, on or about May 6, 2013
c. Track 3: Robin Thickes interview with Twitter Take Over On or about
July 20, 2014
d. Track 4: Robin Thickes interview with Inside Track on Fuse TV, on or
about July 29, 2013
#:2571

2

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

e. Track 5: Robin Thickes interview with Oprah, on or about October 13,
2013
f. Track 6: Robin Thickes interview with TMZ, on or about September 26,
2013
g. Track 7: Pharrell Williams Admits Blurred Lines Was Inspired By
Marvin Gayes Got to Give it Up, on or about October 31, 2013.
6. Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of the March 4,
2014 XXL article Pharrell Has Found His Happy Place in the Mainstream, by Dan
Rys, in which he admits that he was trying to pretend that he was Marvin Gaye when
creating Blurred Lines.
7. Attached hereto as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of the October 31,
2013 HipHollywood.com article Pharrell Williams Admits Blurred Lines Was Inspired
By Marvin Gayes Got to Give it Up, by Ashley Williams, in which he admits that he
was inspired by Marvin Gaye and he tried to take the feeling that Got to Give it Up
gave him, when creating Blurred Lines.
8. Attached hereto as Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy of excerpts of April
23, 2014 Deposition of Robin Thicke.
9. Attached hereto as Exhibit 7 is a true and correct copy of excerpts of April
21, 2014 Deposition of Pharrell Williams.
10. Attached hereto as Exhibit 8 is a true and correct copy Declaration of
Sandy Wilbur in Bourne Co v. Twentieth Century Fox.
11. Attached hereto as Exhibit 9 is a true and correct copy of excerpts of
August 27, 2014 Deposition of Sandy Wilbur.
12. Attached hereto as Exhibit 10 is a true and correct copy of a profile of
Robin Thicke posted on Allmusic.com, discussing Robin Thickes perpetual Marvin
[Gaye] fixation.
#:2572

3

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

13. Attached hereto as Exhibit 11 is a true and correct copy of the August 8,
2013 New York Times.com article Why Blurred Lines Wont Go Away by Rob
Hoerburger.
14. Attached hereto as Exhibit 12 is a true and correct copy of the August 23,
2013 Rolling Stone article Robin Thicke, You're No Marvin Gaye, by David Ritz.
15. Attached hereto as Exhibit 13 is a true and correct copy of the July 30,
2013 Vice article Why Don't We Have a Song of the Summer Yet?, by Paul Cantor.
16. Attached hereto as Exhibit 14 is a true and correct copy of excerpts of
Trial Testimony of Sandy Wilbur in Guzman v. Hacienda Records, United States
District Court, Southern District of Texas, Case No. 6:12-cv-00042, Dkt. No 148.
17. Attached hereto as Exhibit 15 is a true and correct copy of Sandy Wilburs
2012 Musicology Services Brochure for Music Suppliers and Advertisers.
18. Attached hereto as Exhibit 16 is a true and correct copy of a DVD
containing:
a. Track 1: Thicke Deposition Video from 68:20-71:7
b. Track 2: Thicke Deposition Video from 31:15-19
c. Track 3: Thicke Deposition Video from 103:15-24
d. Track 4: Thicke Deposition Video from 105:17-19
e. Track 5: Thicke Deposition Video from 115:2-10
f. Track 6: Thicke Deposition Video from 116:1-18
g. Track 7: Thicke Deposition Video from 31:12-14
h. Track 8: Thicke Deposition Video from 27:16-28:4
i. Track 9: Thicke Deposition Video from 88:10-12
j. Track 10: Thicke Deposition Video from 154:11-16
k. Track 11: Williams Deposition Video from 66:24-68:15
l. Track 12: Williams Deposition Video from 90:14-17
m. Track 13: Williams Deposition Video from 104:18-110:22
n. Track 14: Williams Deposition Video from 60:6-12
#:2573

4

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

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing
is true and correct. Executed this 7th day of September 2014.

/s/Richard S. Busch
Richard S. Busch
#:2574

Exhibit 1
#:2575
6
1 KING, HOLMES, PATERNO &BERLINER, LLP
HOWARDE. KING, ESQ., STATEBARNo. 77012
2 STEPHEND. ROTHSCHILD,ESQ., STATEBARNo. 132514
ROTHSCHILD@KHPBLAW.COM
3 SETHMILLER,EsQ., STATEBARNo. 175130
MILLER@KHPBLAW.COM
4 1900 AVENUEOFTHESTARS,25
TH
FLOOR
Los ANGELES,CALIFORNIA90067-4506
5 TELEPHONE:(310) 282-8989
FACSIMILE: (310) 282-8903
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Counter-
7 Defendants PHARRELL WILLIAMS,
ROBIN THICKE and CLIFFORD
8 HARRIS, J R. and Counter-Defendants
MORE WATER FROM NAZARETH
9 PUBLISHING, INC., PAULA MAXINE
PATTON individually and dlbla
10 HADDINGTON MUSIC, STAR TRAK
ENTERTAINMENT, GEFFEN
11 RECORDS, INTERS COPE RECORDS,
UMG RECORDINGS, INC., and
12 UNIVERSAL MUSIC DISTRIBUTION
13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
14 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION
15 PHARRELL WILLIAMS, an
16 individual~ and CLIFFORD HARRIS,
J R., an individual,
17
18
19
Plaintiffs,
vs.
20 Michigan cOl]J oration; FRANKIE
CHRISTIAN GA YE, an individual;
21 MARVIN GA YE III, an individual;
NONA MARVISA GA YE, an
22 individual; and DOES 1through 10,
inclusive,
23
24
25 AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.
Defendants.
2 6 I I I
2 7 I I I
2 8 I I I
4112.060/746228.1
CASE NO. CV13-06004-J AK (AGRx)
PLAINTIFF AND COUNTER-
DEFENDANT ROBIN THICKE'S
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO
DEFENDANTS AND COUNTER
CLAIMANTS FRANKIE
CHRISTIAN GAYE AND NONA
MARVISA GAYE'S FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
#:2576
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
KING, HOLMES,
PATERNO &
BERLINER, LLP
Defendants and Counter-Claimants Frankie
Christian Gaye and Nona Marvisa Gaye
Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant Robin Thicke
One
1 PROPOUNDING PARTY:
2
3 RESPONDING PARTY:
4 SET NO.:
5 Pursuant to Rule 33 of theFederal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff and
6 Counter-Defendant Robin Thicke ("Responding party") hereby provides these
7 supplemental responses to Defendants and Counter-Claimants Frankie Christian
8 Gaye and Nona Marvisa Gaye's ("propounding parties") first set of interrogatories.
9 GENERAL OBJECTIONS AND PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
10 Responding party generally objects to the interrogatories tothe extent they
11 and the instructions and definitions therein purport to impose obligations beyond
12 those provided inapplicable law and arevague, ambiguous and unintelligible.
13 Responding party has not completed discovery or his investigation and analysis of
14 the facts, issues and evidence inthe instant action. Accordingly, Responding party
15 reserves his right to produce and/or offer information andlor documents responsive
16 to the requests that Responding party has not yet identified or of which Responding
17 party is not presently aware.
In particular, propounding parties, after obtaining multiple extensions to
respond to discovery, using the extra time to propound hundreds of repetitive
requests for production and interrogatories, and then serving seriously inadequate
discovery responses, refused to grant atwo week extension to respond to the instant
interrogatories. Propounding parties had no legitimate reason to refuse to provide
the reciprocal professional courtesy inthe formof the requested extension and the
refusal violated Rule (B)(2) of the above-entitled Court's Civility and
Professionalism Guidelines. Responding party intends to provide all responsive
information to the subject interrogatories to which propounding parties areentitled
and are gathering same.
III
4112.060/746228.1 2
#:2577
1 SUPPLEMENTAL
2 RESPONSES TOINTERROGATORIES
3 INTERROGATORY NO.1:
4 Identify by name, title, and address each and every person which you have
5 reason to believe you may call as awitness at the trial of this matter or who may
6 have personal knowledge of facts regarding the claims and defenses at issue inthis
7 action. Provide ashort statement, innarrative form, with respect to each witness or
8 person identified above describing thenature and substance of the proposed
9 testimony of each witness or knowledge of each person, including which
10 allegations inCounter-Defendants' Answer or defenses thetestimony or knowledge
11 would address.
4112.0601746228.1 3
12 RESPONSE TOINTERROGATORY NO.1:
13 Responding party objects to the subject interrogatory onthe grounds that it is
14 too general to meet therequirements ofPed.R.Civ.P. 26(b), seeks attorney work
15 product and/or attorney-client communications, is overbroad and unduly
16 burdensome, is vague, ambiguous and unintelligible, is not relevant to any claimor
17 defense at issue herein, seeks information that is subject to the rights of privacy of
18 responding party and third parties, andthat it is compound and, therefore, causes the
19 total number of interrogatories inthis set to exceed the allotted maximum.
20 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TOINTERROGATORY NO.1:
22 too general to meet therequirements ofPed.R.Civ.P. 26(b), seeks attorney work
23 product and/or attorney-client communications, is overbroad and unduly
24 burdensome, is vague, ambiguous and unintelligible, is not relevant to any claimor
25 defense at issue herein, seeks information that is subject to the rights of privacy of
26 Responding party and third parties, and that it is compound and, therefore, causes
27 the total number of interrogatories inthis set to exceed the allotted maximum.
28 / / /
KING, HOLMES,
PATERNO &
BERLlNER,LLP
#:2578
State the factual and/or legal basis for Counter-Defendants' Affirmative
Defenses identified inCounter-Defendants' Answer.
4112.0601746228.1 4
1 Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Responding party
2 responds as follows: Please seePlaintiffs and Counter-Defendants' Initial
3 Disclosures, incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. Responding
4 party's investigation and discovery into these matters is ongoing.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
KING, HOLMES,
PATERNO &
BERlINER,LLP
RESPONSE TOINTERROGATORY NO.2:
Responding party objects to the subject interrogatory onthe grounds that it is
too general to meet therequirements ofPed.R.Civ.P. 26(b), seeks attorney work
product and/or attorney-client communications, is overbroad and unduly
burdensome, is vague, ambiguous and unintelligible, isnot relevant to any claimor
defense at issue herein, seeks information that is subject tothe rights of privacy of
responding party and third parties, and that it is compound and, therefore, causes the
total number of interrogatories inthis set to exceed the allotted maximum.
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.2:
Responding party objects to the subject interrogatory on the grounds that it is
too general to meet therequirements ofPed.R.Civ.P. 26(b), seeks attorney work
product and/or attorney-client communications, is overbroad and unduly
burdensome, is vague, ambiguous and unintelligible, is not relevant to any claimor
defense at issue herein, seeks information that is subject to the rights of privacy of
Responding party and third parties, and that it is compound and, therefore, causes
the total number of interrogatories inthis set to exceed the allotted maximum.
Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Responding party
responds as follows: The compositions and sound recordings "Blurred Lines" and
"Love After War" were independently created and do not copy, interpolate, or
infringe "Got to GiveIt Up" or "After the Dance." There is no similarity between
those Marvin Gaye compositions, respectively, and "Blurred Lines" and "Love
#:2579
1 After War." On information and belief, the Gayes do not own and/or did not
2 register acopyright inthose portions of the Marvin Gaye songs that the Gayes allege
3 were copied, including without limitation because those portions arenot sufficiently
4 original, aregeneric, and/or arenot encompassed within the copyright deposit,
5 and/or because the Gayes otherwise lack standing to assert their claims. On
6 information andbelief, the Gayes were advised by their publisher, EMI, that their
7 claims had no merit, andthey have proceeded inbad faith andwithout justification
8 in asserting their claims. The foregoing is not intended to and shall not be deemed
9 to alter the Gayes' burden of proof on any issue on which they bear such burden
10 under applicable law. Responding party's investigation and discovery into these
11 matters is ongoing.
4112.0601746228.1 5
13 Name all persons who contributed to the songwriting, composing, arranging,
14 recording, mixing, remixing, creation, development, and/or revision of the sound
15 recording or musical composition "Blurred Lines" and describe their involvement.
16 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.3:
18 too general to meet therequirements ofFed.R.Civ.P. 26(b), seeks information that is
19 not relevant to any claimor defense herein, is overbroad andunduly burdensome, is
20 vague, ambiguous and unintelligible, seeks information that is subject to the rights
21 of privacy of responding party and third parties, and that it is compound and,
22 therefore, causes the total number of interrogatories inthis set to exceed the allotted
23 maximum.
24 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.3:
KING, HOLMES,
PATERNO &
BERLINER, LLP
#:2580
1 of privacy of Responding party and third parties, and that it is compound and,
2 therefore, causes thetotal number of interrogatories inthis set to exceed the allotted
3 maximum.
4112.0601746228.1 6
5 responds as follows:
6 Written By Robin Thicke, Pharrell Williams, Clifford Harris, J r.
7 Vocals By Robin Thicke, Pharrell Williams, Clifford Harris, J r.
8 Produced By Pharrell Williams.
9 Instruments By Pharrell Williams.
10 Recorded By Andrew Colman.
11 Assisted By Todd Hurt.
12 Digital Editing and Arrangement By Andrew Coleman.
13 Mixed By Tony Maserati.
14 Mix Assisted By J ustin Hergett and J ames Krausse.
15 Mastered By Chris Gehringer.
16 The persons listed above may be contacted c/o counsel for Plaintiffs.
17 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d), please seealso the
18 documents produced by Plaintiffs and Counter-Defendants inresponse to
19 Defendants/Counter-Claimants' requests for production of documents.
21 Name all persons who contributed to the songwriting, composing, recording,
22 mixing, remixing, creation, development, and/or revision of the sound recording or
23 musical composition "Love After War" and describe their involvement.
26 too general to meet therequirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b), seeks information that is
27 not relevant to any claimor defense herein, is overbroad and unduly burdensome, is
KING, HOLMES,
PATERNO &
BERLlNER,LLP
#:2581
#:2582
1 musical composition "Blurred Lines," and provide their current physical (and if
2 different, mailing) address and telephone number.
4 Responding party objects to the subject interrogatory on the grounds that it is
5 too general to meet the requirements ofFed.R.Civ.P. 26(b), seeks information that is
6 not relevant to any claim or defense herein, is overbroad and unduly burdensome, is
9 therefore, causes the total number of interrogatories in this set to exceed the allotted
10 maximum.
4112.0601746228.1 8
13 too general to meet the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b), seeks information that is
17 therefore, causes the total number of interrogatories in this set to exceed the allotted
18 maximum.
20 responds as follows: Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33( d), please see
21 the documents produced by Plaintiffs and Counter-Defendants in response to
24 Name each copyright owner, publisher, sub-publisher, licensor, licensee,
25 licensing agent, collection agent and/or administrator of the sound recording or
26 musical composition "Love After War," and provide their current physical (and if
27 different, mailing) address and telephone number.
28 / / /
KING, HOLMES,
PATERNO &
BERLlNER,LLP
#:2583
4112.0601746228.1 9
6 of privacy of responding party and third parties, andthat it is compound and,
8 maximum.
16 maximum.
18 responds as follows: Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d), please see
19 the documents produced by Plaintiffs and Counter-Defendants inresponse to
22 Identify each separate version of "Blurred Lines" and "Love After War" in
23 existence, including commercially released and unreleased versions, and the
24 location (e.g. physical or digital location andlor mailing address) where such
25 version is currently stored andlor located; and for each commercially exploited
26 version include acatalogue number and any other unique identification (e.g. ISBN
27 code).
28 III
KING, HOLMES,
PATERNO &
BERLINER, LLP
#:2584
4112.060/746228.1 10
8 maximum.
16 rnaxrmum.
22 Identity each and every recorded statement, or statement that has been
23 reported inany format, inwhich you made reference to Marvin Gaye, and/or his
24 impact onyou, and/or your desire to create asong that sounded like "Got To Give
25 it Up."
KING, HOLMES,
PATERNO &
BERLINER, LLP
#:2585
1 not relevant to any claimor defense herein, is overbroad and unduly burdensome,
2 and is vague, ambiguous andunintelligible.
4112.0601746228.1 11
7 and is vague, ambiguous and unintelligible.
10 the copies of interviews produced by Plaintiffs and Counter-Defendants inresponse
11 to Defendants/Counter-Claimants' requests for production of documents.
13 Identify each and every source of revenue by payor, and the amounts
14 received by you or to bereceived by you, related to the musical compositions
15 andlor sound recordings "Blurred Lines" and "Love After War."
20 vague, ambiguous and unintelligible, and that it is compound and, therefore, causes
21 thetotal number of interrogatories inthis set to exceed the allotted maximum.
22 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TOINTERROGATORY NO.9:
27 thetotal number of interrogatories inthis set to exceed the allotted maximum.
28 III
KING, HOLMES,
PATERNO &
BERLlNER,LLP
#:2586
5 INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
6 Arethere any musical similarities between the musical composition and/or
7 sound recording "Blurred Lines" and the musical composition and/or sound
8 recording "Got To Give it Up?" If so, please identify them.
9 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
4112.060/746228.1 12
15 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
22 responds as follows: No.
24 Are there any musical similarities between the musical composition and/or
25 sound recording "Love After War" and themusical composition and/or sound 8
26 recording "After The Dance?" If so, please identify them.
27 /11
28 III
KING, HOLMES,
PATERNO &
BERLlNER,LLP
#:2587
5 vague, ambiguous and unintelligible, andthat it is compound and, therefore, causes
16 Was the musical composition andlor sound recording "Got To Give it Up"
17 used as inspiration in any way inthe creation of the musical composition andlor
18 sound recording "Blurred Lines?" If so, how?
22 not relevant to any claimor defense herein, is overbroad andunduly burdensome,
23 and is vague, ambiguous and unintelligible, seeks information that is subject to the
24 rights of privacy of responding parties and third parties, and that it is compound and,
26 maximum.
27 III
28 III
KING, HOLMES,
PATERNO &
BERLlNER,LLP
4112.0601746228.1 13
#:2588
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
KING, HOLMES,
PATERNO &
BERLINER, LLP
1 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TOINTERROGATORY NO. 12:
3 too general tomeet the requirements ofPed.R.Civ.P. 26(b), seeks information that is
5 and is vague, ambiguous and unintelligible, seeks information that is subject to the
6 rights of privacy of responding parties and third parties, and that it is compound and,
8 maximum.
Was themusical composition and/or sound recording "After The Dance"
used as inspiration inany way inthe creation of the musical composition and/or
sound recording "Love After War?" If so, how?
RESPONSE TOINTERROGATORY NO. 13:
too general tomeet therequirements ofPed.R.Civ.P. 26(b), seeks information that is
not relevant to any claimor defense herein, is overbroad and unduly burdensome, is
vague, ambiguous and unintelligible, and that it is compound and, therefore, causes
thetotal number of interrogatories inthis set to exceed the allotted maximum.
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TOINTERROGATORY NO. 13:
too general to meet the requirements ofPed.R.Civ.P. 26(b), seeks information that is
vague, ambiguous andunintelligible, and that it is compound and, therefore, causes
the total number of interrogatories inthis set to exceed the allotted maximum.
Subject to andwithout waiver of the foregoing objections, Responding party
responds as follows: No.
4112,0601746228,1 14
#:2589
2 Did you, Williams or anyone else involved intheprocess of the creation of
3 the musical composition and/or sound recording "Blurred Lines" listen to "Got To
4 Give it Up" within 30 days prior to creating, while creating, or within 60 days after
5 completing "Blurred Lines?" If so, why and for what purpose?
6 RESPONSE TOINTERROGATORY NO. 14:
4112.0601746228.1 15
9 not relevant to any claimor defense herein, seeks information subject to the attorney
10 client privilege and/or which constitutes attorney work product, is overbroad and
11 unduly burdensome, is vague, ambiguous and unintelligible, and is compound and,
13 maximum.
21 maximum.
22 Subject to andwithout waiver of the foregoing objections, Responding party
23 responds as follows: Robin Thicke did not listen to "Got to Give It Up" within the
24 time frame stated inthe Interrogatory. No one listened to "Got to Give It Up" inthe
25 studio when "Blurred Lines" was created. Responding party otherwise lacks
26 information and belief sufficient to answer this Interrogatory as to anyone else.
27 / / /
28 / / /
KING, HOLMES,
PATERNO &
BERLINER, LLP
#:2590
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
KING, HOLMES,
PATERNO &
BERLlNER,LLP
2 Did you or anyone else involved in the process of the creation of the musical
3 composition and/or sound recording "Love After War" listen to "After The Dance"
4 while creating "Love After War?" If so, why and for what purpose?"
5 RESPONSE TOINTERROGATORY NO. 15:
7 too general to meet the requirements of Fed.R. Civ.P. 26(b), seeks information that is
9 vague, ambiguous and unintelligible, and is compound and, therefore, causes the
10 total number of interrogatories in this set to exceed the allotted maximum.
Please describe step by step how "Blurred Lines" was created, including any
and all conversations you had with Williams or anyone else involved in the
creation or recording of "Blurred Lines" about what you were attempting to
achieve with the song (i.e., whether you were trying to evoke Marvin Gaye at all or
create something that sounded like "Got To Give it Up").
RESPONSE TOINTERROGATORY NO. 16:
too general to meet the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b), seeks information that is
not relevant to any claim or defense herein, is overbroad and unduly burdensome, is
4112.0601746228.1 16
#:2591
4112.0601746228.1 17
10 responds as follows: The track was created fromscratch in about anhour and ahalf.
11 Robin Thicke told Pharrell Williams that Thicke would love to create asong that
12 evoked the musical era of "Got to Give It Up." Williams created the instrumental
13 track and the first verse, and then Thicke and Williams created therest of the verses,
14 improvising four lines at atime. Clifford Harris later added avocal track.
16 Please describe step by step how "Love After War" was created, including
17 any and all conversations you had with anyone else involved inthe creation of
18 "Love After War" about what you were attempting to achieve with the song (i.e.,
19 whether you were trying to evoke Marvin Gaye at all or create something that
20 sounded like "After The Dance").
27 / / /
28 / / /
KING, HOLMES,
PATERNO &
BERLINER, LLP
#:2592
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
KING, HOLMES,
PATERNO &
BERLINER, LLP
3 too general tomeet the requirements ofFed.R.Civ.P. 26(b), seeks information that is
8 responds as follows: Robin Thicke wrote the song onhis piano in fiveminutes after
9 having had afight with Paula Patton, and then herecorded it the next day inhis
10 home studio. Approximately oneyear later, Thicke and Patton rewrote the lyrics.
12 Identify all sources of inspiration andlor collaboration for the creation of the
13 title "Blurred Lines," including any known derivation thereof or intended meaning
14 or metaphor associated therewith.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 18:
too general tomeet the requirements ofFed.R.Civ.P. 26(b), seeks information that is
vague, ambiguous and unintelligible, and is compound and, therefore, causes the
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 18:
too general to meet the requirements ofFed.R.Civ.P. 26(b), seeks information that is
not relevant to any claimor defense herein, is overbroad andunduly burdensome, is
vague, ambiguous and unintelligible, and is compound and, therefore, causes the
III
III
4112.0601746228.1 18
#:2593
4112.0601746228.1 19
1 Subject to andwithout waiver of the foregoing objections, Responding party
2 responds as follows: Thetitle refers to the subject matter of the song, which is
3 about agood girl who has nasty thoughts.
5 Identify all analog and digital transcriptions, comparisons and analyses of
6 "Blurred Lines" and"Got to Give it Up" created at your request or with your
7 knowledge prior tothe initial U.S. commercial release of the single, or prior to the
8 initial U.S. commercial release of the albumthereof, including any discussions with
9 anyone about the similarities.
17 maximum,
25 maximum.
27 responds as follows: None.
28 / / /
KING, HOLMES,
PATERNO &
BERLlNER,LLP
#:2594
Pharrell and I were in the studio and I told him that one of my favorite
songs of all time was Marvin Gaye's 'Got to give it Up.' I was like,
'Damn, we should make something like that, something with that
groove.' Then he started playing alittle something and we literally
wrote the song in about half an hour and recorded it;
23 admitted:
24
25
26
27
28
KING, HOLMES,
PATERNO &
BERLINER, LLP
4112.0601746228.1 20
2 Identify all analog and digital transcriptions, comparisons and analyses of
3 "Love After War" and "After The Dance" created at your request or with your
4 knowledge prior to the commercial release thereof, including any discussions with
5 anyone about the similarities.
8 too general to meet the requirements of Fed.R. Civ.P. 26(b), seeks information that is
19 responds as follows: None.
21 If your answer to any of interrogatory Nos. 10, 12 or 14 is no, please explain
22 each answer in light of your May 7, 2013 interview with GQ, in which you
#:2595
12 vague, ambiguous andunintelligible, that it is not full and complete in and of itself,
13 and that it is compound and, therefore, causes the total number of interrogatories in
14 this set to exceed the allotted maximum.
17 too general to meet therequirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b), seeks information that is
19 vague, ambiguous andunintelligible, that it is not full and complete in and of itself,
20 and that it is compound and, therefore, causes thetotal number of interrogatories in
2
3
4
5
6
7
Pharrell and I were inthe studio making acouple records, and then on
thethird day I told himI wanted to do something kinda likeMarvin
Gaye's 'Got to Give it Up,' that kind of feel 'cause it's one of my
favorite songs of all time. So he started messing around with some
drums andthen he started going 'Hey, hey, hey .. ' and about an hour
and ahalf later wehad thewhole record finished.
1 andlor your J uly 9,2013 interview with Billboard, inwhich you admitted:
21 this set to exceed the allotted maximum.
22 I I I
23 I I I
24 I I I
25 I I I
26 I I I
27 I I I
28 I I I
KING, HOLMES,
PATERNO &
BERLINER, LLP
4112.0601746228.1 21
#:2596

2 responds as follows: Thicke wanted to create asong that evoked the musical eraof
3 "Got to Give It Up." But Williams created the instrumental track and vocal melody
4 (except for the second verse melody) fromhis own inspiration and ideas.
5
6
DATED: March 28,2014
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
KING, HOLMES,
PATERNO &
BERLINER, LLP
4112.0601746228.1
KING, HOLMES, PATERNO &
BERLINER, LLP
By:
--+----"' ----------"------
SETH MILLER
HOWARD E. KING
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Counter-Defendants
PHARRELL WILLIAMS, ROBIN THICKE
and CLIFFORD HARRIS, J R. and Counter-
Defendants MORE WATER FROM
NAZARETH PUBLISHING, INC., PAULA
MAXINE PATTON individually and d/b/a
HADDINGTONMUSIC, STAR TRAK
ENTERTAINMENT, GEFFEN RECORDS,
INTERSCOPE RECORDS, UMG
RECORDINGS, INC., and UNIVERSAL
MUSIC DISTRIBUTION
22
#:2597
VERIFICA nON
I have read the foregoing PLAINTIFF AND COUNTER-DEFENDANT ROBIN
rBICKE'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS AND COUNTER
;LAIMANTS FR.ANKIE CHRISTIAN GAVE AND NONA MARVISA GAVE'S FIRST
;ET OF INTERROGATORIES and know its contents.
I am aparty to this action. The matters stated in the foregoing document are true of my
IWU knowledge. information or belief.
ExecutedonMarch212014.at~, N(.AN ~k- C.r~i < b t":
I declare under penalty of perjury under th~a~ United States of Am .ca that the
oregoing is true and correct.
Robin Thieke
>rintName of Siznatorv
Si
112.0601750384.1
#:2598
5
Attorneys for
Defendants/Counterclaimants
NONA MARVISA GAYE AND
FRANKIE CHRISTIAN GAYE
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
3 At thetime of service, I was over 18years of age and not aparty to this
action. I amemployed inthe County of Los Angeles, State of California, My
4 business address is 1900Avenue of the Stars, Twenty-Fifth Floor, Los Angeles, CA
90067-4506.
On March 28, 2014, I served true copies of the following document( s)
6 described asPLAINTIFF AND COUNTER-DEFENDANT ROBIN TH!CKE'S
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS AND COUNTER
7 CLAIMANTS FRANKIE CHRISTIAN GAYE AND NONA MARVISA
GAYE'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES onthe interested parties inthis
8 action as follows:
9 Richard S. Busch, Esq.
KING &BALLOW
10 315Union Street, Suite 1100
Nashville, TN 37201
11 (615) 259-3456 - Telephone
(615) 726-5417 - Facsimile
12
13
BY FEDEX: I enclosed said document(s) in an envelope or package
14 provided by FedEx and addressed to the persons at the addresses listed inthe
Service List. I placed the envelope or package for collection and overnight delivery
15 at an office or aregularly utilized drop box ofFedEx or delivered such document(s)
to acourier or driver authorized by FedEx to receive documents.
16
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of
17 America that the foregoing istrue and correct and that I amemployed inthe office
of amember of thebar of this Court at whose direction the service was made.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Executed onMarch 28, 2014, at Los Angeles, California.
4112.0601746228.1
#:2599
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
KING, HOLMES,
PATERNO &
BERLINER, LLP
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
At thetime of service, Iwas over 18years of age and not aparty to this
action. I amemployed inthe County of Los Angeles, State of California. My
business address is 1900Avenue of the Stars, Twenty-Fifth Floor, Los Angeles, CA
90067-4506.
On March 28, 2014, Iserved true copies of the following document/ s)
described asPLAINTIFF AND COUNTER-DEFENDANT ROBIN TIt(CKE'S
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS AND COUNTER
CLAIMANTS FRANKIE CHRISTIAN GAYE AND NONA MARVISA
GAYE'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES onthe interested parties inthis
action as follows:
SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
BY MAIL: Ienclosed the document(s) in asealed envelope or package
addressed tothepersons at the addresses listed inthe Service List and placed the
envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. Iam
readily familiar with King, Holmes, Paterno & Berliner, LLP's practice for
collecting andprocessing correspondence for mailing. Onthe same day that the
correspondence isplaced for collection and mailing, It is deposited inthe ordinary
course of business with the United States Postal Service, in asealed envelope with
postage fully prepaid.
Ideclare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of
America that the foregoing istrue and correct and that Iamemployed inthe office
of amember of the bar of this Court at whose direction the service was made.
Executed onMarch 28,2014, at Los Angeles, California.
4112.0601746228.1
#:2600
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
KING, HOLMES,
PATERNO &
BERLlNER,LLP
Attorneys for
SERVICE LIST
Williams, Pharrell, et al. v. Bridgeport Music, Inc., et al,
2: 13-cv-06004-J AK (AGRx)
Paul H. Duvall, E~q.
KING & BALLOW
6540Lusk Blvd., Suite 250
SanDiego, CA 92121
(858) 597-6000 - Telephone
(858) 597-6008 - Facsimile
Mark L. Block, Es9.:
WARGO & FRENCH LLP
1888Century Park East, Suite 1520
(310) 853-6355 - Telephone
(310) 853-6333 - Facsimile
Paul N. Philips, Esq.
TheLaw Offices of Paul N. Philips,
APLC
9255 Sunset Blvd #920
(323) 813-1126 - Office
(310) 854-6902 - Facsimile
4112.0601746228.1
Attorneys for
Attol1lej1sfor Defendant
MARVIN GAYE III
#:2601

Exhibit 1A
#:2602
#:2603
#:2604
#:2605
#:2606
#:2607
#:2608
#:2609

Exhibit 2
#:2610
#:2611
#:2612
#:2613
#:2614
#:2615
#:2616
#:2617

Exhibit 3
#:2618

Paul H. Duvall (SBN 73699)
E-Mail: pduvall@kingballow.com
KING & BALLOW
6540 Lusk Blvd., Suite 250
San Diego, CA 92121
(858) 597-6000
Fax: (858) 597-6008
Nona Marvisa Gaye
Richard S. Busch (TN BPR 014594)
(pro hac vice)
E-Mail: rbusch@kingballow.com
KING & BALLOW
315 Union Street, Suite 1100
Nashville, TN 37201
(615) 259-3456 Fax: (615) 726-5417
Claimants Frankie Christian Gaye and Nona
Marvisa Gaye

Mark L. Block (SBN 115457)
E-Mail: mblock@wargofrench.com
WARGO & FRENCH LLP
1888 Century Park East; Suite 1520
(310) 853-6355 Fax: (310) 853-6333
Nona Marvisa Gaye
Paul N. Philips (SBN 18792)
E-Mail: pnp@pnplegal.com
The Law Offices of Paul N. Philips
9255 West Sunset Boulevard
West Hollywood, CA 90069
(323)813-1126 Fax: (323) 854-6902
Attorney for Defendant and Counter-Claimant
Marvin Gaye III

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION

PHARRELL WILLIAMS, an
individual; and CLIFFORD HARRIS,
JR., an individual,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

Michigan corporation; FRANKIE
CHRISTIAN GAYE, an individual;
MARVIN GAYE III, an individual;
NONA MARVISA GAYE, an
individual; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive,

Defendants.

_______________________________

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS
Case No. CV13-06004-JAK (AGRx)
Hon. John A. Kronstadt

CONCURRENTLY LODGED AS A
NONPAPER EXHIBIT

EXHIBIT 3 TO THE DECLARATION
OF RICHARD S. BUSCH IN
SUPPORT OF COUNTER-
CLAIMANTS OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFFS AND COUNTER-
DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, PARTIAL
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Date: October 20, 2014
Time: 8:30 a.m.
Ctrm: 750

Action Commenced: August 15, 2013
Trial Date: February 10, 2015
EXHIBIT 3 TO RICHARD S. BUSCH DECLARATION
CONCURRENTLY LODGED AS A NONPAPER EXHIBIT
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

#:2619

Exhibit 4
#:2620
#:2621
#:2622
#:2623

Exhibit 5
#:2624
#:2625
#:2626
#:2627
#:2628

Exhibit 6
#:2629
#:2630
#:2631
#:2632
#:2633
#:2634
#:2635
#:2636
#:2637
#:2638
#:2639
#:2640
#:2641
#:2642
#:2643
#:2644
#:2645
#:2646
#:2647
#:2648
#:2649
#:2650
#:2651
#:2652
#:2653
#:2654
#:2655
#:2656
#:2657
#:2658

Exhibit 7
#:2659
#:2660
#:2661
#:2662
#:2663
#:2664
#:2665
#:2666
#:2667
#:2668
#:2669
#:2670
#:2671
#:2672
#:2673
#:2674
#:2675
#:2676
#:2677
#:2678
#:2679
#:2680
#:2681
#:2682
#:2683
#:2684
#:2685
#:2686
#:2687
#:2688
#:2689
#:2690
#:2691
#:2692
#:2693
#:2694
General Information
Court United States District Court for the Central District of California;
United States District Court for the Central District of California
Nature of Suit Property Rights - Copyrights[820]
Docket Number 2:13-cv-06004
Pharrell Williams et al v. Bridgeport Music Inc et al, Docket No. 2:13-cv-06004 (C.D. Cal. Aug 15, 2013), Court Docket
2014 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Service
// PAGE 126

Pharrell Williams Et Al V Bri

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pharrell Williams Et Al V Bri

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Paul H.

Duvall (SBN 73699)

1 Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Responding party

You might also like