Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Los Angeles News Service Robert Tur v. CBS Broadcasting, Inc. Court-Room Television Network

313 F.3d 1093

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
2002-12-19
Topic
capital-markets-and-corporate-governance

How later courts describe this case

  • “As fair use is a mixed question of fact and law, so long as the record is ‘sufficient to evaluate each of the statutory factors,’ we may reweigh on appeal the inferences to be drawn from that record.”

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Los Angeles News Service Robert Tur v. CBS Broadcasting, Inc. Court-Room Television Network. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
24 opinions
LOS ANGELES NEWS SERV. v. CBS BROADCASTING,313 F.3d 1093(9th Cir. 2002)
LOS ANGELES NEWS SERVICE; Robert Tur, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CBS
BROADCASTING, INC.; Court-room Television Network, Defendants-Appellees.
Nos. 00-56470, 00-57000.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted February 5, 2002.
Filed September 16, 2002.
Amended December 19, 2002.
H. Jay Ford III, Tyre Kamins Katz Granof, Los Angeles, CA, argued the cause for the appellants. Lindsey A. Duro, Los Angeles, CA, and William A. Bergen, Auburn, CA, were on the briefs.

Frederick F. Mumm, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Los Angeles, CA, argued the cause and filed a brief for the appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California; Florence-Marie Cooper, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-99-01041-FMC.
Before: O'SCANNLAIN and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges, and REED,fn*District Judge.

Opinion by Judge O'SCANNLAIN; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge SILVERMAN.
ORDER
The opinion filed September 16, 2002 is hereby ordered amended as follows:
Slip Op. at 13984 [305 F.3d at 935]: Add a footnote on line 3 of the first full paragraph after the word "presses" that reads:
"CBS also claims that the videotape should be excluded as an evidentiary sanction.SeeFed.R.Civ.P.37(c)(1) (imposing sanctions where a party "fails to disclose information required by Rule 26(a)"). However, at the time this action was filed, the Central District of California had chosen not to incorporate the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1). Therefore, CBS's argument that the videotape should be excluded as a sanction fails because the district court, by local rule, had not adopted the mandatory disclosures that would otherwise be requiredPage 1094under Rule 26(a) and subject to sanction under Rule 37(c)(1)."


With this amendment, the panel has voted unanimously to deny the petition for rehearing.

The petition for rehearing is DENIED.
  1. The Honorable Edward C. Reed, Jr., Senior United States District Judge for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation. ↩