Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

NOVAK v. NATIONAL BROADCASTING CO.

March 7, 1991

E.J. NOVAK AND DEBRA STUDER, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
NATIONAL BROADCASTING COMPANY, INC., NBC PRODUCTIONS, INC., BRANDON TARTIKOFF, BROADWAY VIDEO, INC., LORNE MICHAELS, AND DINAH MINOT, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sweet, District Judge.

OPINION

Plaintiffs pro se E.J. Novak ("Novak") and Debra Studer ("Studer") have moved pursuant to Rule 60(b)(2), Fed.R.Civ.P. and Rule 3(j) of the Civil Rules of the Southern District for reargument of the court's opinion of December 5, 1990 granting summary judgment of the outstanding copyright infringement claims to defendants National Broadcasting Company, Inc., Brandon Tartikoff, Broadway Video, Inc., Lorne Michaels, and Dinah Minot (collectively, the "NBC Defendants"). 752 F. Supp. 164. For the reasons set forth below, the motion to reargue is denied.

The Parties

Defendant National Broadcasting Company, Inc. ("NBC"), a Delaware Corporation with offices in New York, has for many years broadcast Saturday Night Live ("SNL"), an acclaimed late-night comedy show. Defendant NBC Productions, a subsidiary of NBC, also has offices in New York. Defendant Brandon Tartikoff ("Tartikoff"), during the time of the events giving rise to this dispute, was president of NBC Entertainment, a division of NBC with offices in New York.

Defendant Broadway Video, Inc. ("Broadway Video"), a production company that produces SNL jointly with NBC productions, is a New York corporation with its principal place of business in New York. Defendant Lorne Michaels ("Michaels") is president of Broadway Video and the Executive producer of SNL. Defendant Dinah Minot ("Minot") is an independent contractor who has been involved in SNL's production.

Prior Proceedings and Facts

The proceedings prior to the motion to reargue as well as the relevant facts are set forth in the Court's opinion of December 5, 1990 granting summary judgment (the "Opinion") and need not be restated here.

On December 20, 1990, Novak and Studer filed this motion to reargue. Pursuant to Rule 3(j), the court did not hear oral argument on this motion. The motion was considered submitted as of January 4, 1991.

Discussion

Novak and Studer base their motion on existing facts which they claim the court overlooked, on case law which they claim the court misinterpreted, and on new evidence which they claim to have discovered since the issue of the Opinion.

To be entitled to reargument under Rule 3(j), Novak and Studer must demonstrate that the court overlooked controlling decisions or factual matters that were put before the court on the underlying motion. Ashley Meadows Farm v. Am. Horse Shows Ass'n, 624 F. Supp. 856, 857 (S.D.N.Y. 1985).

Rule 60(b)(2) provides that a party may make a motion for a court to relieve it from a final judgment or order on the basis of "newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time. . . ." In order to succeed on such a motion, the movant must present evidence that is "truly newly discovered or could not have been found by due diligence." United States v. Potamkin Cadillac Corp., 697 F.2d 491, 493 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1144, 103 S.Ct. 3128, 77 L.Ed.2d 1379 (1983), (citing Westerly Electronics Corp. v. Walter Kidde & Co., 367 F.2d 269, 270 (2d Cir. 1966)).

Moreover, in deciding a Rule 60(b) motion, a court must balance the policy of hearing a litigant's claims on the merits against the policy in favor of finality. Kotlicky v. U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co., 817 F.2d 6, 9 (2d Cir. 1987), citing 11 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure ยง 2857 (1973). The new evidence ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.