Thank you...

Do you believe that CCP made this claim in good faith? Or that they changed their minds? Is it typical for discovery items and depositions to not be on the docket in other courts?

THAT is impossible to know without hearing both sides of the story, and as much as you would like to think so, the Complaint and Answer do NOT give you the complete description of the underlying facts, pretty much by design.

I am not really sure how other states handle the docketing of discovery, I only work in New York. But here, the Court does not become involved in discovery issues other than 1) setting a schedule, which in the Live case doesn't seem to have happened, and 2) resolving disputes between the parties when their attorneys can't agree. Other than that, the discovery process is basically up to the parties to complete.

Based on all that I see, this was a filing made to preserve the claim for Statute of Limitations purposes, and it may never be pursued to its completion.

The principle is one of law...if they are in on the publishing, they are in on the copyright and hence the money. I don't think anyone has denied that they each had a 25% interest in the publishing.

So no, I don't think discovery is necessary to know this.

I apologize if this question is non-nonsensical, I'm still learning this stuff, but are you saying that neither party can make a motion to compel production of documents in New York? Is that not part of the discovery process?

But couldn't there be other contracts or negotiations that would have an effect on this principle?

I suppose if there had been some agreement whereby CCP agreed to waive their publishing rights with respect to the specific songs at issue, that could do it. So I guess you could look for some discovery on that issue.

If there is such an agreement, and CCP brought the action despite of that agreement, then I suppose you could say that claim wouldn't be based in good faith.

But if I read Ed's answer correctly (and I only skimmed it so maybe not), I think he admitted that CCP each owned 25% of the publishing and I didn't read enough of it to see if he also alleges some alternate agreement that would vitiate that.

You don't make a motion to compel discovery until AFTER you have served a demand for discovery that the other side doesn't respond to. Such demands do not get filed with the Court, you work on them on your own.

If a party doesn't respond, yes, you can make a Motion to compel discovery. However, that assumes that there was a discovery schedule set by the Court, which in this case there hasn't been. It would also require the case to be assigned to a judge by filing of an RJI which also hasn't happened. In fact, many (if not most) judges require a party to ask permission of the Court prior to making such a Motion, typically by letter or telephone.

So is a motion to compel discovery part of the discovery process? It can be, but only if the parties aren't working well together. So, unless there is a disagreement, no such motion would appear on the Court's docket.

Why would Ed's lawyer be willing to deny all claims if he didn't have a substantial defense, such as an existing agreement or other evidence which detracts from general publishing rights?

In terms of bad faith, I was considering the idea that CCP (possibly with Ed complicit) would pursue a legitimate action, without a desire to collect, as a pretext to advertising. Even though it may be unlikely, it seems like it would be a brilliant way to get attention from the media and the public, along with an excuse for firing Ed that the fans could accept.

Would prior existing agreements appear on the docket as evidence in any way?
thanks again

And to digress on to other topics ... I don't care if you make Jesus Christ the lead singer of your new re-tooled band, it WON'T WORK 9 times out of 10. Ask Fuel (Brett had that cool voice). Ask Creed (and they lost their mo). Heck, even Journey stinks after all these years. [Van Halen is the one and only exception].

Agreed. I enjoyed Alter Bridge way more than I did Creed. Not sure where this fits into the present thread but still.

Because if he didn't deny them, he would be admitting them, and then Ed would lose and the lawyer would not be doing his job.

I don't believe there were enough fans left in 2010 that still cared about Live for that to have been a consideration.

No they would not appear on the docket in any way. Agreements such as that are not filed with the Court.