IN RE: "The Exorcist" Copyright Infringement Litigation

Ed Case MDL No. 239 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 1 of 6 Taam
I)
NE man Ct - " |
® i Ea] pACtBEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ~~ 1/7 |
ON " -~ 70MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION IPR 22 iy
IN RE "THE EXORCIST" COPYRIGHT ) PATIL
INFRINGEMENT LITIGATION ) DQEKET ‘NO. * 239
OPINION AND ORDER
BEFORE JOHN MINOR WISDOM, CHAIRMAN, AND EDWARD WEINFELD,
EDWIN A. ROBSON *, WILLIAM H. BECKER, JOSEPH	S. LORD, III,
STANLEY A. WEIGEL *, AND ANDREW A. CAFFREY, JUDGES OF THE PANEL
PER CURIAM
This litigation consists of four actions, each
® pending in a different district: the Central District
of California, the Northern District of Illinois, the
District of Colorado, and the Eastern District of Louisiana.
These actions were instituted by Warner Bros., Inc. and
Hoya Productions, Inc., which together allegedly hold the
copyrights in the motion picture "The Exorcist" and a
related "pressbook" that includes suggested advertisements
designed to assist the promotion of the movie. Plaintiffs
allege that these copyrights have been and are being infringed
by the distribution, exhibition and advertising of an
Italian-produced motion picture entitled "Beyond The Door."
* Judges Robson and Weigel were unable to attend
the Panel hearing and, therefore, took no part
® in the consideration or decision of this matter.

Case MDL No. 239 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 2 of 6 . :
@
- 2 -
They also claim that defendants have engaged in unfair trade
practices and unfair competition with plaintiffs by distribu-
ting and exhibiting "Beyond The Door," and by utilizing posters
and advertisements for "Beyond The Door" which allegedly are
copies of promotional materials found in plaintiffs’ pressbook.
Defendants in the California action are Film Ventures Inter-
national, which apparently is the sole distributor of "Beyond
The Door" in the United States, and two exhibitors of this
movie. Each of the other three actions was commenced against
a different exhibitor of "Beyond The Door." In addition,
Highland Productions, Inc., the defendant in the Colorado
action, has filed a third-party complaint against Film Ventures ®
for indemnification.
Plaintiffs move the Panel for an order transferring
all actions to the Central District of California for coordi-
nated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §1407. only defendants Film Ventures and Highland
oppose transfer. We find that these actions raise common
questions of fact and that their transfer to the Central
District of california under Section 1407 will best serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote
the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
Both defendants opposing transfer concede that
these actions share common factual questions concerning
®

. a Case MDL No. 239 Document2 Filed 05/01/15 Page	3 of 6
® - 3 =
the issue of whether "Beyond The Door" has infringed the
alleged copyright of "The Exorcist." Nevertheless, defendant
Film Ventures argues that transfer is unwarranted because
such questions do not predominate over issues unique to each
defendant, such as foreseeability of possible copyright infringe-
ment, whether local promotional efforts constituted infringement,
and damages. Defendant Highland maintains that because reso-
lution of its third-party complaint for indemnification against
Film Ventures may be dispositive of any liability by Highland,
it is unnecessary for Highland to participate in any coordi-
nated or consolidated proceedings. Discovery relative to the
o indemnification issue, Highland emphasizes, will focus primarily
| upon the business relationship between Highland and Film Ventures,
which is unrelated to discovery required for the other actions.
We are not persuaded by these arguments. Instead,
we believe that the questions of fact common	to all actions
on the central issue of whether "Beyond The Door" has infringed
the copyright of "The Exorcist" necessitate transfer under
Section 1407 in order to prevent duplication of discovery,
eliminate the possibility of inconsistent pretrial rulings,
and conserve judicial effort. Unlike In re "Truckin" Cartoon
Characters Copyright Litigation, 372 F. Supp. 14060 (J.P.M.L.
1974), wherein we denied transfer because the purported copy-
right holder of a cartoon character was suing more than 30
®

Case MDL No. 239 Document2 Filed 05/01/15 Page	4 of 6 : :
a ®
manufacturers, distributors or retailers of various novelty
items that allegedly infringed the copyright, the litigation
before us focuses upon a single allegedly infringing motion
picture. And regardless of whether defendant Highlana prevails
on its third-party claim for indemnification, the central issue
of infringement will remain to be resolved in the Colorado
action. Moreover, the transferee judge has the flexibility
to design a pretrial program that will accommodate the needs
of each party for any unique discovery or judicial
attention concurrently with the common pretrial matters and,
as a result, the litigation will harmoniously proceed for
the overall benefit of the parties, their witnesses and the C
judiciary. See In re Republic National-Realty Equities
Securities Litigation, 382 F. Supp. 1403, 1405-06 (J.P.M.L.
1974).
Clearly, the Central District of California is
the most appropriate transferee forum for this litigation.
The action pending there is considerably more advanced than
the others. Concomitantly, Judge David W. Williams, to whom
the California action is assigned, has become acquainted
with the issues involved in these actions and is therefore
in the best position to supervise the coordinated or ca soli-
dated pretrial proceedings toward their most just and expeditious
termination. See In re Griseofulvin Antitrust Litigation,
395 F. Supp. 1402, 1403 (J.P.M.L. 1975). ®

. we Case MDL No. 239 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 5 of 6
® - 5 =
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed
on the following Schedule A and pending in districts other
than the Central District of California be, and the same
hereby are, transferred to the Central District of California
and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honor-
able David W. Williams for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407 with the
action already pending there and listed on Schedule A.
® |
|

Case MDL No. 239 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 6 of 6 ET
SCHEDULE A DOCKET NO. 239
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ®
Warner Bros. Inc., et aI. v. Film Ventures Civil Action
Internationa, et al. No. CV75-2774~-DWW
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Warner Bros, Inc., et al. v. Plitt Civil Action
Theatres, Inc. No. 75C3816
DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Warner Bros. Inc., et al. v. Highland Civil Action
Theatres, Inc. No. 75-1195
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
Warner Bros., Inc., et al. v. Gulf States Civil Action
Theatres, Inc. No. 75-3466-Sec.F
| | ®