Thomson Reuters News & Insight
Featured Content from WESTLAW

Legal

  •  
  •  

Summary Judgments

Summary Judgments for January 17

1/17/2013 COMMENTS (0)

Uneventful

1/17/13

By Caitlin Tremblay

The Sundance Film Festival opens today in Park City, Utah, and the event is already full of drama. And we're not talking about the indie films being launched.

Hype Creative Agency, a promotion company, is suing Sundance Partners for breach of contract, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing and interference with contractual relations, according to The Hollywood Reporter.

Hype says it had a three-year contract to use Park City restaurant Zoom, which is owned by actor and founder of Sundance Robert Redford, to host festival-related promotional events. The agreement allowed Hype to use Redford's "interest in Zoom as part of Hype Creative's promotional materials," according to the agency.

Hype expected to make $500,000 from events held at the restaurant, it says. But when the company used a photo of Redford in its promo materials, Sundance said it wanted to renegotiate the contract to less favorable terms. When Hype refused, Sundance terminated the agreement. Hype claims other clients now have jumped ship and that it lost opportunities to stage events at Coachella Music Festival, Cannes Film Festival and the Grammys. It is seeking $1.5 million in lost profits.

Sundance hasn't commented on the suit.

Sketchy business

1/17/13

By Dan Brillman

As more and more cameras operate inside U.S. courtrooms, cases that allow only sketch illustrations bring an increasing air of distinction and exclusivity to the proceedings.

But who draws those compelling court sketch scenes? The web site ArchetypeMe (hat tip: ABA Journal) interviewed Art Lien, who has been hired by many media organizations to draw the proceedings of high-profile cases, including Jerry Sandusky, Tim McVeigh, Richard "Shoe Bomber" Reid. For NBC News, he's often at the U.S. Supreme Court and even caught the rare moment earlier this week when Clarence Thomas broke his 7-year-long bench silence.

When Lien started in the pre-C-SPAN 1970s, he worked the U.S. Senate as well. These days, Lien says he is part of a dying breed and advises young artists not to break into the niche business because of a lack of opportunities.

One beef: SCOTUS work can be boring, Lien tells ArchetypeMe. "I'm drawing the same scene over and over -- the same Justices, even the same lawyers," he says. To combat the monotony of drawing people sitting in leather seats all day, Lien says he sometimes gets a little creative. For example, as Justice Antonin Scalia commented during Freeman v. Quicken Loans that Aesop should have written the term as "lion's portion" and not "lion's share," Lien drew a mane on the justice. In another drawing he gave Scalia whiskers and a cat's paw. And when Chief Justice John Roberts distinguished between the meanings of the words "corn" and "corny," Lien put an ear of said vegetable in the jurist's hand.

Snoop dodge

1/17/13

By Suhrith Parthasarathy

The Justice Department is sticking to its guns when it comes to the Obama administration's surveillance strategy, reports Wired. In short: The government's practices remain "privileged and confidential," according to two memos obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union through a Freedom of Information request.

The ACLU filed its request following last year's Supreme Court decision in United States v. Jones, where the court ruled that a GPS tracker cannot be placed on a suspect's car without a warrant. In the wake of that ruling, the ACLU wanted to know how the Federal Bureau of Investigation was implementing Jones, since police sometimes use techniques such as trap and trace and license plate surveillance to keep tabs on suspects, without obtaining a probable cause warrant, according to Ars Technica.

Through the FOIA request the ACLU obtained two Justice Department memos, dated Feb. 27 and July 5, 2012, that were nearly completely redacted, according to ACLU staff attorney Catherine Crump. She writes that the memos leave Americans with no clear understanding of when they will be subjected to tracking and under what circumstances, with or without a warrant. "The purpose of the FOIA is to make sure the government doesn't operate under secret law -- and right now that's exactly what these memos are," Crump says.

Summary Judgments for January 16

Summary Judgments for January 15

Summary Judgments for January 14

Follow us on Twitter @ReutersLegal | Like us on Facebook 


Register or log in to comment.

© 2013 Thomson Reuters