Los Angeles News Service Robert Tur v. CBS Broadcasting, Inc. Court-Room Television Network
LOS ANGELES NEWS SERVICE; Robert Tur, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CBS BROADCASTING, INC.; Courtroom Television Network, Defendants-Appellees
Opinion
Opinion by Judge O’SCANNLAIN; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge SILVERMAN.
Prior report: 305 F.3d 924 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. See Fed.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 re *1094 quired under 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.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(“As fair use is a mixed question of fact and law, so long as the record is ‘suf- ficient to evaluate each of the statutory factors,’ we may reweigh on appeal the inferences to be drawn from that record.”)
Cited by 21 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.