It’s still hot and heavy in the Bratz litigation. There are these enticing entries on the district court docket:
|05/18/2009||5510||PHASE 2 DISCOVERY MATTER – ORDER NO. 34 filed by Special Master Robert C O’Brien Regarding Motion to Compel Production of Hard Drives from Computers Used by Isaac Larian after February 27, 2008 (O’Brien, Robert) (Entered: 05/18/2009)|
|05/18/2009||5509||BRIEF filed by counter claimant Mattel Inc. in Support of an Injunction Requiring MGA to Obtain Court Approval Before Filing for Bankruptcy (Naim, Cyrus) (Entered: 05/18/2009)|
MGA’s emergency ex parte motion for stay pending appeal in the district court was denied on May 21, so on May 26 MGA moved in the 9th Circuit for a stay.
The order MGA wants stayed is one that sweepingly transfers, in the court’s words, “all tangible or intangible assets, including, without limitation, all intellectual property necessary or materially useful for the design, manufacture, marketing, distribution and sale of any Bratz doll or other Bratz-branded product in the possession, custody or control (whether or not claimed to be encumbered by any security interest) of any of the MGA Defendants” and, in MGA’s words, requires “perhaps the largest toy recall in U.S. history.” Injecting personal opinion, I find MGA’s arguments that the order should be staying until after the decision on appeal are very persuasive. Appeal briefing schedule as follows:
|05/29/2009||DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. SEND CADS: No. Setting cross-appeal briefing schedule as follows: First cross appeal brief due 10/19/2009 for Carter Bryant, Isaac Larian, MGA Entertainment (HK) Limited and MGA Entertainment, Inc. Second brief on cross appeal due 11/18/2009 for Mattel, Inc. Third brief on cross appeal due 12/18/2009 for Carter Bryant, Isaac Larian, MGA Entertainment (HK) Limited and MGA Entertainment, Inc. Optional cross appeal reply brief due 14 days from the service of third brief on cross appeal. [09-55812, 09-55673] (BG)|
P.S. Note to MGA attorneys: It’s “brooch,” not “broach.” Really killed the analogy.
© 2009 Pamela Chestek