The case involved a dispute over the scope of waiver of attorney-client and work product privileges in a patent infringement action, where the defendants asserted a good-faith belief defense based on advice from their counsel that their product did not infringe the plaintiff's reissue patent or that the patent was invalid. The magistrate judge had ruled that the waiver was limited to communications actually provided to the defendants and did not extend to counsel's uncommunicated work product. The district court reviewed this ruling, noting the absence of Federal Circuit precedent and that the key issue in willful infringement claims is the defendant's state of mind, which is not affected by materials never shared with the client; it therefore followed district court authority holding that the waiver does not reach internal attorney work product.
In Doucette v. City of Santa Monica, plaintiffs brought a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging Santa Monica ordinances regulating solicitation, claiming the provisions violated the First Amendment by criminalizing homelessness. The court held that plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge Ordinance 1758 but possessed standing to facially challenge the solicitation provisions of Ordinance 1768. The court ruled that these provisions are constitutional because, even under the heightened scrutiny applied to speech restrictions in public forums, they are narrowly tailored to serve the significant governmental interest of preventing harassment and intimidation and leave open ample alternative channels for solicitation.
The case centers on plaintiff James Trenton, a radio host under contract with defendant Infinity Broadcasting, who sued in state court alleging 20 causes of action including misappropriation, conversion, and breach of contract over defendants' continued airing of the Loveline radio program format after his 1993 suspension, claiming he conceived and owned the format. Defendants removed the action to federal court and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), contending that Section 102(b) of the federal Copyright Act bars any property interest in the uncopyrightable program format or ideas and that Section 301(a) preempts all state claims predicated on such an interest. Plaintiff moved to remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1447, arguing the claims were purely state-law matters, and sought sanctions. The court analyzed whether the format qualified as protectable subject matter or was preempted, ultimately addressing federal preemption and the propriety of federal jurisdiction over the removed action.
Sunbelt Television, a local broadcast station operator, sued Jones Intercable for refusing to carry its channel on Jones' cable system, alleging violations of Section 2 of the Sherman Act through monopoly leveraging, denial of an essential facility, and attempted monopolization, plus a state unfair competition claim. Jones moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing the claims failed as a matter of law and were barred by the First Amendment as a protected editorial decision. The court denied the motion as to monopoly leveraging and unfair competition, finding the allegations sufficient and that the First Amendment does not shield anti-competitive conduct, while dismissing the essential facility and attempted monopolization claims without prejudice for lack of clarity on the relevant market and granting leave to amend.
In this criminal tax case, defendant Stribling moved under 26 U.S.C. § 6103(h)(5) for an order requiring the government to obtain from the IRS a yes-or-no response on whether any of approximately 300 prospective jurors had been audited or investigated. The court denied the motion on two independent grounds: it was filed after the extended Rule 12 cutoff date of January 15, 1991, and well after the multi-month process of compiling and mailing pre-voir dire questionnaires had begun, and it was not made with sufficient advance notice to permit the Secretary to process the request before the April 17 trial date without causing substantial delay. The court noted that the statute envisions early release of the jury list and that granting the motion at this stage would disrupt the carefully planned voir dire process and the validity of the 3,000 questionnaires already sent; as a practical alternative, it ordered the parties to propose a limited set of voir dire questions on the topic instead of a full IRS search.
This case involves the FDIC, acting as conservator for the failed Westwood Savings, suing former directors and officers for fraud and mismanagement; those defendants then filed cross-claims for indemnification against third-party professionals including Touche Ross & Co. and Stroock & Stroock & Lavan. The cross-claim defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court granted the motion and dismissed the cross-claims, holding that they were pendent-party claims requiring an independent basis of federal jurisdiction under precedents such as Finley v. United States. Although 12 U.S.C. § 1819(b)(2) provides federal jurisdiction over civil suits to which the FDIC is a party, the statute does not extend to these ancillary third-party indemnification claims, which remain governed by state law and must be pursued in state court.