Preview
1 JEREMIAH REYNOLDS (SBN 223554)
jreynolds@eisnerlaw.com
2 KATHERINE PIERUCCI (SBN 301051)
kpierucci@eisnerlaw.com
3 EISNER, LLP
433 North Camden Drive, 4th Floor
4 Beverly Hills, California 90210
Electronically Received 10/04/2023 06:50 PM
Telephone: (310) 855-3200
5 Facsimile: (310) 855-3201
6 Attorneys for Plaintiff,
STEAMROLLER, LLC
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT
10
11 STEAMROLLER, LLC, an Iowa Limited Case No. 23STCV13254
Liability Company;,
12 The Hon. Armen Tamzarian
Plaintiff,
13 PLAINTIFF STEAMROLLER, LLC’S
vs. INFORMAL DISCOVERY
14 CONFERENCE STATEMENT
SLIPKNOT, LLC, a Delaware Limited
15 Liability Company; SLIPKNOT, INC., a Judge: Hon. Armen Tamzarian
California Corporation; KNOT Date: October 18, 2023
16 PRODUCTIONS, LLC; a Delaware Limited Time: 10:30 a.m.
Liability Company; COREY TAYLOR, an Dept.: 52
17 individual residing in California; and
MICHAEL SHAWN CRAHAN, an individual Action Filed: June 8, 2023
18 residing in California,
19 Defendants.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EISNER, LLP 2848124 1
#2848124 v1
PLAINTIFF STEAMROLLER, LLC’S INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE STATEMENT
1 I. INTRODUCTION
2 Defendants Slipknot, LLC, Slipknot, Inc., Knot Productions, LLC, Corey Taylor, and
3 Michael Shawn Crahan’s (collectively, “Defendants”) have violated California law and obstructed
4 the discovery process by refusing to comply with Plaintiff Steamroller, LLC’s (“Plaintiff”)
5 demand for inspection. This case concerns Defendants’ wrongful possession of tangible items
6 belonging to the late, beloved metal drummer, Joey Jordison, and the successor-in-interest to
7 Jordison’s estate, Plaintiff. After filing this lawsuit and waiting for the statutory hold period to
8 expire, Plaintiff served an inspection demand on Defendants to inspect certain items in
9 Defendants’ possession in order to discover evidence in support of Plaintiff’s claims in this
10 litigation—i.e., that Defendants wrongfully possess items belonging to Plaintiff/Jordison. The
11 inspection is necessary for Plaintiff to discover what items are in Defendants’ possession so that
12 the parties may litigate the merits of the central issue of ownership in this case.
13 Notwithstanding Plaintiff’s clear entitlement to this discovery under California law,
14 Defendants have outright refused to comply. Defendants have taken the erroneous position that
15 they do not have to respond to any discovery until after Defendants’ now-pending demurrer is
16 decided. This argument lacks any legal basis. Indeed, California law permits discovery while a
17 demurrer is pending and even after a demurrer has been sustained with leave to amend so that the
18 claimant may discover “facts essential to his stating a cause of action.” Budget Finance Plan v.
19 Sup. Ct. (1973) 34 CA3d 794, 797; see also Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1990) 223
20 CA3d 1429, 1436 (“The right to discovery generally does not depend on the status of the
21 pleadings, i.e., the case need not be “at issue.”). Undeterred, Defendants served meritless,
22 boilerplate objections that fail to identify with particularity (or at all) the tangible things falling
23 within each category of item in the demand as required by CCP § 2031.240(b). In light of
24 Defendants’ wholesale refusal to participate in discovery, Plaintiff informed Defendants that
25 Plaintiff would move to compel. For the reasons set forth below, this Court should conclude that
26 Defendants must provide further written responses to Plaintiff’s demand for inspection and agree
27 to a date and location for inspection within thirty days of the informal discovery conference
28 (“IDC”) set for October 18, 2023.
EISNER, LLP 2848124 2
#2848124 v1
PLAINTIFF STEAMROLLER, LLC’S INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE STATEMENT
1 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2 Central to this case is Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendants wrongfully possess numerous
3 items that once belonged to Jordison, and are now the property of Plaintiff, the successor-in-
4 interest to Jordison’s estate. As is alleged in the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), Plaintiff first
5 discovered photographic evidence in October 2022 that Defendants wrongfully possess numerous
6 items belonging to Jordison/Plaintiff and that Defendants have been displaying these items (and
7 potentially numerous others belonging to Jordison/Plaintiff) for a profit at a travelling Slipknot
8 museum called Knotfest. (Id. ¶¶ 24-26.) Plaintiff thus filed this lawsuit alleging causes of action
9 for breach of contract, fraud and deceit, negligent misrepresentation, conversion, unjust
10 enrichment, and accounting based on, inter alia, Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendants possess
11 tangible items that legally belong to Plaintiff. Importantly, Plaintiff has alleged that it does not
12 have a comprehensive understanding of all of the items belonging to Plaintiff in Defendants’
13 possession. (See, e.g., ¶ 3.)
14 After filing this lawsuit, Plaintiff served a narrow set of eight Requests for Inspection
15 (“Requests”) on Defendants, demanding that Defendants “provide for inspection the tangible items
16 set forth” in the Requests “to the offices” of Plaintiff’s counsel. (Pierucci Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A.)
17 Defendants refused to comply with the inspection based on the erroneous argument that discovery
18 is stayed until the case is at issue. (Id. ¶ 3, Ex. B.) Defendants served improper boilerplate
19 objections and no substantive response to Plaintiff’s Requests. (Id., Ex. C.) Despite Plaintiff’s
20 efforts to meet and confer with Defendants, Defendants have outright refused to comply with the
21 Requests and refused to propose an alternative date or location for the inspection. (Id. ¶ 4.)
22 III. PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO THE INSPECTION UNDER CCP SECTION
23 2031.010
24 Code of Civil Procured Section 2031.010 entitles Plaintiff to the inspection sought by the
25 Requests. The Requests seek a reasonable inspection of eight categories of tangible items in
26 Defendants’ possession: (i) items that belong to Plaintiff or Joey Jordison, (ii) items that were
27 displayed at Knotfest Japan 2023, (iii) items that have been displayed at any Knotfest, (iv) masks
28 that were worn by Jordison, (v) clothing that was worn by Jordison, (vi) shoes that were worn by
EISNER, LLP 2848124 3
#2848124 v1
PLAINTIFF STEAMROLLER, LLC’S INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE STATEMENT
1 Jordison, (vii) musical instruments that were played by Jordison or belong to Plaintiff or Jordison,
2 and (viii) Slipknot memorabilia, Joey Jordison memorabilia, or memorabilia otherwise belonging
3 to Plaintiff or Jordison. (Id. Ex. A.) The Requests are thus reasonably calculated to discover highly
4 relevant evidence to this litigation— i.e., a comprehensive list of the items belonging to
5 Jordison/Plaintiff that remain in Defendants’ possession and what condition these items are in.
6 This discovery is necessary for the parties to litigate the question of ownership in this case. There
7 is therefore good cause for Plaintiff to move to compel compliance with the Requests, especially
8 given that Defendants have exclusive possession and knowledge of Plaintiff’s belongings at issue.
9 CCP § 2031.310(b)(1) (to prevail on a motion to compel further responses to an inspection
10 demand, the motion must set forth facts showing “good cause” justifying the discovery sought by
11 the inspection demand); TBG Ins. Services Corp. v. Superior Court, 96 Cal.App.4th 443, 444
12 (2002) (“Good cause” is satisfied by a mere showing of relevance).
13 IV. THERE IS NO DISCOVERY STAY IN THIS CASE
14 Defendants have taken the erroneous position that discovery is stayed until this Court rules
15 on Defendants’ now-pending demurrer and have therefore refused to comply with Plaintiff’s
16 inspection demand. (Pierucci Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. B.) But Plaintiff’s entitlement to discovery “does not
17 depend on the status of the pleadings, i.e., the case need not be ‘at issue.’” Mattco Forge, Inc.,
18 223 CA3d at 1436. California law permits discovery while a demurrer is pending, and even after a
19 demurrer has been sustained with leave to amend so the claimant may discover “facts essential to
20 his stating a cause of action.” Budget Finance, 34 CA3d at 797. Defendants therefore have no
21 legal basis to refuse to comply with Plaintiff’s inspection demand.
22 V. DEFENDANTS’ WRITTEN OBJECTIONS ARE BOILERPLATE,
23 MERITLESS, AND IMPROPER UNDER CCP SECTION 2031.240(B)
24 Defendants’ objections are boilerplate, meritless, and violate California code. CCP §
25 2031.240(b) provides:
26 If the responding party objects to the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or
27 sampling of an item or category of item, the response shall do both of the following:
28 (1) Identify with particularity any document, tangible thing, land, or electronically
EISNER, LLP 2848124 4
#2848124 v1
PLAINTIFF STEAMROLLER, LLC’S INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE STATEMENT
1 stored information falling within any category of item in the demand to which an
2 objection is being made and (2) Set forth clearly the extent of, and the specific
3 ground for, the objection.
4 Defendants have not even attempted to satisfy these requirements.
5 As a preliminary and dispositive matter, Defendants’ objections do not “[i]dentify with
6 particularity any . . . tangible thing . . . falling within any category of item in the demand.” See id.
7 Defendants’ objections therefore are not code-compliant and must be amended to comply with
8 CCP § 2031.240(b). Additionally, Defendants’ objections do not “[s]et forth clearly the extent of,
9 and the specific ground for, the objection.” Instead, Defendants objected to each Request using
10 the same meritless and boilerplate objections.
11 For example, Defendants objected to each of the Requests on the grounds that they fail to
12 “[s]pecify [the] inspection . . . or related activity that is being demanded, as well as the manner in
13 which that activity will be performed” and fail to “[s]pecify a reasonable place for making the
14 inspection.” (Pierucci Decl. Ex. C.) But the opening paragraph of the Requests specifies Plaintiff’s
15 counsel’s law office for the inspection, specifies that the inspection shall take place within thirty
16 (30) days of service, and notes that “[a]ll tangible items shall be transported and produced in their
17 current condition (as of the date of this Request) and within the coordinating drum case, travel
18 case, or other protective packaging to ensure that no tangible items are damaged in transit.” (Id.
19 Ex. A.) Requests 1 through 8 then specify the particular items that are sought for inspection. (See
20 id.)
21 Next, Defendants objected to all Requests on the grounds that the location specified for
22 the inspection (i.e., Plaintiff’s counsel’s law office) is “harassing, oppressive, overly broad, and
23 unduly burdensome.” (Id. Ex. C.) But Defendants did not and still have not proposed an
24 alternative location for the inspection. That Defendants stole Plaintiff’s belongings and shipped
25 them across the world to profit off of them is not a valid basis for Defendants to refuse to produce
26 Plaintiff’s belongings for inspection. Defendants have no one to blame for the alleged “burden”
27 and “special attendant” costs of complying with the Requests than themselves. Defendants had
28 thirty days to respond to the Requests and to make arrangements to produce the requested items
EISNER, LLP 2848124 5
#2848124 v1
PLAINTIFF STEAMROLLER, LLC’S INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE STATEMENT
1 for inspection (and could have, but elected not to, seek a courtesy extension of time). But
2 Defendants did not even attempt to comply with their discovery obligations.
3 Defendants further object to every Request on the grounds of vagueness and ambiguity,
4 and that the Requests do not “specifically describe[e] each individual item or . . . reasonably
5 particulariz[e] each category of item.” (Id. Ex. C.) This is simply not the case. Each of the eight
6 Requests served on Defendants is specific and straightforward. (See Section III.A; Pierucci Decl.
7 Ex. A.) Moreover, Requests 4–8 contain lists of specific examples of items that fit into the
8 categories of items requested. (Id. Ex. A.) Defendants’ objections on the grounds of vagueness
9 and/or ambiguity are therefore frivolous.
10 VI. CONCLUSION
11 In light of the foregoing, the Court should conclude that Defendants must provide further
12 written responses to Plaintiff’s demand for inspection and agree to a date and location for
13 inspection within thirty days of this IDC.
14 DATED: October 4, 2023 EISNER LLP
15
16
By:
17 JEREMIAH REYNOLDS
KATHERINE PIERUCCI
18 Attorneys for Plaintiff,
STEAMROLLER, LLC
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EISNER, LLP 2848124 6
#2848124 v1
PLAINTIFF STEAMROLLER, LLC’S INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE STATEMENT
1 DECLARATION OF KATHERINE PIERUCCI
2 I, Katherine Pierucci, declare as follows:
3 1. I am an attorney licensed to practice before this Court, and am Senior Counsel with
4 the law firm of Eisner LLP, attorneys of record herein for Plaintiff Steamroller, LLC (“Plaintiff”).
5 I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein, which are known by me to be true and
6 correct, and, if called upon to testify as a witness, I could and would competently testify thereto. I
7 make this Declaration in support of Plaintiff’s Informal Discovery Conference Statement.
8 2. On July 17, 2023, Plaintiff served Requests for Inspection (“Requests”) on
9 Defendants Slipknot, LLC, Slipknot Inc., Knot Productions, LLC, Corey Taylor, and Michael
10 Shawn Crahan (collectively “Defendants”). A true and correct copy of the Requests is attached
11 hereto as Exhibit A.
12 3. Defendants refused to comply with the Requests based on the erroneous argument
13 that discovery is stayed until the case is at issue. A true and correct copy of the email I received
14 from Defendants’ counsel, Jackson Trugman, on July 24, 2023 in the ordinary course of business
15 is attached hereto as Exhibit B. Defendants failed to comply or even offer an alternative date or
16 location for the inspection, nor did Defendants request a courtesy extension to comply with the
17 inspection demand. On August 18, 2023, Defendants served objections to each of the Requests.
18 A true and correct copy of Defendants’ objections to the Requests is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
19 4. Despite my efforts to meet and confer with Mr. Trugman, Defendants continued to
20 refuse to comply with the Requests. I informed Mr. Trugman that in light of Defendants’ refusal
21 to comply with the Requests and Defendants’ meritless objections, Plaintiff intended to move
22 forward with a motion to compel and seek sanctions.
23 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
24 foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this 4th day of October, 2023, at Beverly Hills,
25 California.
26
27
Katherine Pierucci
28
EISNER, LLP 2848124 7
#2848124 v1
PLAINTIFF STEAMROLLER, LLC’S INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE STATEMENT
EXHIBIT A
1 JEREMIAH REYNOLDS (SBN 223554)
jreynolds@eisnerlaw.com
2 KATHERINE PIERUCCI (SBN 301051)
kpierucci@eisnerlaw.com
3 EISNER, LLP
433 North Camden Drive, 4th Floor
4 Beverly Hills, California 90210
Telephone: (310) 855-3200
5 Facsimile: (310) 855-3201
6 Attorneys for Plaintiff, STEAMROLLER, LLC
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT
10
11 STEAMROLLER, LLC, an Iowa Limited Case No. 23STCV13254
Liability Company;,
12 The Hon. Armen Tamzarian
Plaintiff,
13 PLAINTIFF STEAMROLLER, LLC’S
vs. REQUESTS FOR INSPECTION
14
SLIPKNOT, LLC, a Delaware Limited Action Filed: June 8, 2023
15 Liability Company; SLIPKNOT, INC., a
California Corporation; KNOT
16 PRODUCTIONS, LLC; a Delaware Limited
Liability Company; COREY TAYLOR, an
17 individual residing in California; and
MICHAEL SHAWN CRAHAN, an individual
18 residing in California,
19 Defendants.
20
21 PROPOUNDING PARTIES: Plaintiff STEAMROLLER, LLC
22 RESPONDING PARTIES: Defendants SLIPKNOT, LLC, SLIPKNOT, INC. KNOT
23 PRODUCTIONS, LLC, COREY TAYLOR and MICHAEL
24 SHAWN CRAHAN
25 SET NO.: One
26
27
28 2843771 1
PLAINTIFF STEAMROLLER, LLC’S REQUESTS FOR INSPECTION TO DEFENDANTS SLIPKNOT, LLC,
EISNER, LLP SLIPKNOT, INC. KNOT PRODUCTIONS, LLC, COREY TAYLOR AND MICHAEL SHAWN CRAHAN, SET
#2843771 v1
ONE
1 Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031.010, et seq., Plaintiff
2 Steamroller, LLC (“Steamroller”), by and through their attorneys of record, hereby request that
3 Defendants Slipknot, LLC, Slipknot, Inc., Knot Productions, LLC, Corey Taylor, and Michael
4 Shawn Crahan (“Defendants”) provide for inspection the tangible items set forth below to the
5 offices of Eisner, LLP, 433 North Camden Drive, 4th Floor, Beverly Hills, California 90210,
6 within thirty (30) days of service hereof. All tangible items shall be transported and produced in
7 their current condition (as of the date of this Request) and within the coordinating drum case,
8 travel case, or other protective packaging to ensure that no tangible items are damaged in transit.
9 DEFINITIONS
10 A. The terms “YOU” or “YOUR” refers individual and collectively to Defendants
11 Slipknot, LLC, Slipknot, Inc., Knot Productions, LLC, Corey Taylor, and Michael Shawn Crahan,
12 and anyone else acting, or who has so acted, on their behalf including, but not limited to, any of
13 their agents, representatives, employees (current and former), affiliates, predecessors, successors,
14 assigns, principals, independent contractors, managers, consultants, attorneys, accountants, and
15 each and every person acting on their behalf or at their direction or on whose behalf they were
16 acting with respect to the matters referred to herein.
17 A. The term “KNOTFEST” refers to any event at which any items, including but not
18 limited to musical instruments, equipment, gear, clothing items, shoes, artifacts, merchandise, or
19 memorabilia, associated with the band Slipknot or its members, are displayed, including but not
20 limited to events titled “Knotfest.”
21 B. The term “DEFENDANTS” refers to SLIPKNOT, LLC, SLIPKNOT, INC., KNOT
22 PRODUCTIONS, LLC, COREY TAYLOR, and MICHAEL SHAWN CRAHAN, and anyone
23 else acting, or who has so acted, on their behalf including, but not limited to, any of their agents,
24 representatives, employees (current and former), affiliates, predecessors, successors, assigns,
25 principals, independent contractors, managers, consultants, attorneys, accountants, and each and
26 every person acting on their behalf or at their direction or on whose behalf they were acting with
27 respect to the matters referred to herein.
28 2843771 C. The term “PLAINTIFF” refers to Steamroller, LLC and anyone else acting, or who
2
PLAINTIFF STEAMROLLER, LLC’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO DEFENDANTS SLIPKNOT, LLC,
EISNER, LLP SLIPKNOT, INC. KNOT PRODUCTIONS, LLC, COREY TAYLOR AND MICHAEL SHAWN CRAHAN, SET
#2843771 v1
ONE
1 has so acted, on its behalf including, but not limited to, any of its agents, representatives,
2 employees (current and former), affiliates, predecessors, successors, assigns, principals,
3 independent contractors, managers, consultants, attorneys, accountants, and each and every person
4 acting on its behalf or at his direction or on whose behalf they were acting with respect to the
5 matters referred to herein.
6 REQUESTS FOR INSPECTION
7 REQUEST FOR INSPECTION NO. 1:
8 Produce for inspection all items in Defendants’ possession, custody, or control that belong
9 to Plaintiff or Joey Jordison.
10 REQUEST FOR INSPECTION NO. 2:
11 Produce for inspection all items in Defendants’ possession, custody, or control that were
12 displayed at Knotfest Japan 2023.
13 REQUEST FOR INSPECTION NO. 3:
14 Produce for inspection all items in Defendants’ possession, custody, or control that have
15 been displayed at Knotfest.
16 REQUEST FOR INSPECTION NO. 4:
17 Produce for inspection all masks in Defendants’ possession, custody, or control that were
18 worn by Joey Jordison or otherwise belong to Joey Jordison or Plaintiff, including but not limited
19 to the following: green, white, yellowed, drip mouth, and blank white masks.
20 REQUEST FOR INSPECTION NO. 5:
21 Produce for inspection all clothing items in Defendants’ possession, custody, or control
22 that were worn by Joey Jordison or otherwise belong to Joey Jordison or Plaintiff, including but
23 not limited to the “All Hope is Gone” jacket displayed at Knotfest Japan 2023.
24 REQUEST FOR INSPECTION NO. 6:
25 Produce for inspection all shoes in Defendants’ possession, custody, or control that were
26 worn by Joey Jordison or otherwise belong to Joey Jordison or Plaintiff, including but not limited
27 to the Adidas Samba tennis shoes.
28 REQUEST
2843771 FOR INSPECTION NO. 7:
3
PLAINTIFF STEAMROLLER, LLC’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO DEFENDANTS SLIPKNOT, LLC,
EISNER, LLP SLIPKNOT, INC. KNOT PRODUCTIONS, LLC, COREY TAYLOR AND MICHAEL SHAWN CRAHAN, SET
#2843771 v1
ONE
1 Produce for inspection all musical instruments and equipment in Defendants’ possession,
2 custody, or control that were played or used by Joey Jordison or otherwise belong to Joey Jordison
3 or Plaintiff, including but not limited to drumsticks in tin bucket, signature wrapped drumsticks,
4 6x12 Rocket Tom, 6x15 Rocket Tom, 6x21 Rocket Tom, 14x14 Floor Tom, 16x16 Floor Tom,
5 22x18 Bass Drum, 22x18 Bass Drum, 20x14 Gong Drum, and drum case.
6 REQUEST FOR INSPECTION NO. 8:
7 Produce for inspection all Slipknot memorabilia, Joey Jordison memorabilia, or
8 memorabilia otherwise belonging to Joey Jordison or Plaintiff in Defendants’ possession, custody,
9 or control, including but not limited to the Joey puppet doll and purgatory head.
10
11 DATED: July 12, 2023 EISNER LLP
12
13
By:
14 JEREMIAH REYNOLDS
Attorneys for Plaintiff Steamroller, LLC
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 2843771 4
PLAINTIFF STEAMROLLER, LLC’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO DEFENDANTS SLIPKNOT, LLC,
EISNER, LLP SLIPKNOT, INC. KNOT PRODUCTIONS, LLC, COREY TAYLOR AND MICHAEL SHAWN CRAHAN, SET
#2843771 v1
ONE
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 STEAMROLLER, LLC vs. SLIPKNOT, LLC, ET AL.
23STCV13254
3
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
4
At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. I am
5 employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. My business address is 433 N.
Camden Dr., 4th Floor, Beverly Hills, California 90210.
6
On July 17, 2023, I served true copies of the following document(s) described as
7 PLAINTIFF STEAMROLLER, LLC’S REQUESTS FOR INSPECTION on the interested
parties in this action as follows:
8
SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
9
BY MAIL: I enclosed the document(s) in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the
10 persons at the addresses listed in the Service List and placed the envelope for collection and
mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with the practice of
11 Eisner LLP for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that
correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of
12 business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid. I
am a resident or employed in the county where the mailing occurred. The envelope was placed in
13 the mail at Beverly Hills, California.
14 BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: I caused courtesy copies of the
document(s) to be sent from e-mail address cbrennand@eisnerlaw.com to the persons at the e-mail
15 addresses listed in the Service List. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the
transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful.
16
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
17 foregoing is true and correct.
18 Executed on July 17, 2023, at Beverly Hills, California.
19
20
Cammie R Brennand
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 2843771 5
PLAINTIFF STEAMROLLER, LLC’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO DEFENDANTS SLIPKNOT, LLC,
EISNER, LLP SLIPKNOT, INC. KNOT PRODUCTIONS, LLC, COREY TAYLOR AND MICHAEL SHAWN CRAHAN, SET
#2843771 v1
ONE
1 SERVICE LIST
STEAMROLLER, LLC Vs. SLIPKNOT, LLC, ET AL.
2 23STCV13254
3
4
Jackson Trugman, Esq. Attorney for SLIPKNOT,
LLC, SLIPKNOT, INC.
5 jtrugman@khpslaw.com KNOT PRODUCTIONS, LLC, COREY
King, Holmes, Paterno & Soriano, LLP TAYLOR and MICHAEL SHAWN CRAHAN
6 1900 Ave of the Stars, 25th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
7 Direct: 310.282.8956
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 2843771 6
PLAINTIFF STEAMROLLER, LLC’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO DEFENDANTS SLIPKNOT, LLC,
EISNER, LLP SLIPKNOT, INC. KNOT PRODUCTIONS, LLC, COREY TAYLOR AND MICHAEL SHAWN CRAHAN, SET
#2843771 v1
ONE
EXHIBIT B
From: Katie Pierucci
To: Jackson Trugman; Jeremiah Reynolds
Cc: Cammie Brennand
Subject: RE: Steamroller, LLC vs. Slipknot, LLC, et al. - Case No. 23STCV13254
Date: Monday, July 24, 2023 5:22:17 PM
Jackson, we intend to file an amended complaint in response to the items raised below and on our
call. We have also considered your renewed request for a discovery stay in this case until
Defendants’ contemplated demurrer is decided by the Court. California law permits discovery
before a case is at issue, while a demurrer is pending, and while parties await the filing of an
amended complaint. In light of this, we are unwilling to agree to an extended discovery stay.
The right to discovery generally does not depend on the status of the pleadings. I.e., the case
need not be “at issue.” [Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1990) 223 CA3d 1429, 1436, 273
CR 262, 265—sanctions upheld for refusal to make discovery because demurrer pending]
Deficiencies in the pleadings generally do not affect either party's right to conduct discovery.
Thus, for example, discovery may continue after a demurrer has been sustained with leave to
amend, although no amended complaint has yet been filed—i.e., no valid complaint need be on
file. [Budget Finance Plan v. Sup.Ct. (McDowell) (1973) 34 CA3d 794, 797, 110 CR 302, 304]
From: Jackson Trugman
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2023 9:55 AM
To: Katie Pierucci ; Jeremiah Reynolds
Cc: Cammie Brennand
Subject: RE: Steamroller, LLC vs. Slipknot, LLC, et al. - Case No. 23STCV13254
Thanks, and if you decide to amend, I truly hope you reconsider my reasonable request to stay the
discovery responses.
Jackson S. Trugman, Esq.
King, Holmes, Paterno & Soriano, LLP
direct: 310.282.8955
From: Katie Pierucci
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2023 9:53 AM
To: Jackson Trugman ; Jeremiah Reynolds
Cc: Cammie Brennand
Subject: RE: Steamroller, LLC vs. Slipknot, LLC, et al. - Case No. 23STCV13254
Jackson, we are working on the declaration and plan to have it on file in short order. As for your
demurrer arguments raised below, let’s discuss further on the call, and we will get you an answer on
whether we will amend by EOD.
From: Jackson Trugman
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2023 9:28 AM
To: Jeremiah Reynolds
Cc: Cammie Brennand ; Katie Pierucci
Subject: RE: Steamroller, LLC vs. Slipknot, LLC, et al. - Case No. 23STCV13254
Good morning,
Are you able to respond to the two emails below before our 2pm call today?
Thanks.
Jackson S. Trugman, Esq.
King, Holmes, Paterno & Soriano, LLP
direct: 310.282.8955
From: Jackson Trugman
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2023 12:16 PM
To: 'Jeremiah Reynolds'
Cc: 'Cammie Brennand' ; 'Katie Pierucci'
Subject: RE: Steamroller, LLC vs. Slipknot, LLC, et al. - Case No. 23STCV13254
Could you also let us know when your client will be filing the sworn affidavit pursuant to CCP
377.32?
Jackson S. Trugman, Esq.
King, Holmes, Paterno & Soriano, LLP
direct: 310.282.8955
From: Jackson Trugman
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2023 1:19 PM
To: Jeremiah Reynolds
Cc: Cammie Brennand ; Katie Pierucci
Subject: RE: Steamroller, LLC vs. Slipknot, LLC, et al. - Case No. 23STCV13254
In the meantime, are you able to explain to me why the claims are not obviously time-barred?
The alleged successor in interest’s “knowledge” is irrevant, considering the claims all expired at least
two years before Mr. Jordinson’s death (and in any event were filed outside of the six-month
window in CCP 366.1).
There is no allegation of fraud or concelament, nor could there be given your contradictory
allegations that these were “his most iconic belonings,” which were supposedly itemized in the
agreement after being “expressly negotiated” by Mr. Jordison, and were to be transferred from a
partnership of which he was recently a partner. There are, in fact, no allegations whatsoever as to
Mr. Jordison’s knowledge and/or his reasonable diligence. See Ventura29 LLC v. City of San
Buenaventura, 87 Cal. App. 5th 1028, 1045 (2023) (“In the complaint appellant made allegations only
as to its own lack of discovery,” not that of the “prior owners.”).
It’s your burden here. April Enterprises, Inc. v. KTTV, 147 Cal. App. 3d 805, 832 (1983) (“plaintiff
must plead facts sufficient to convince the trial judge that delayed discovery was justified”). And,
frankly, the discovery rule does not even apply in this type of case, if if you could somehow allege
new facts. See Alfaro v. Cmty. Hous. Improvement Sys. & Plan. Assn., Inc., 171 Cal. App. 4th 1356,
1397 (2009) (“[T]he discovery rule is generally inapplicable to alleged breaches of contract unless
there is a breach of fiduciary duty.”).
I’m trying to save a bunch of wasted time briefing discovery motions and demurrers, and hopefully
you are able to provide more than a two-word response.
Thanks.
Jackson S. Trugman, Esq.
King, Holmes, Paterno & Soriano, LLP
direct: 310.282.8955
From: Jackson Trugman
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2023 5:31 PM
To: Jeremiah Reynolds
Cc: Cammie Brennand ; Katie Pierucci
Subject: Re: Steamroller, LLC vs. Slipknot, LLC, et al. - Case No. 23STCV13254
Then we can use the meet and confer that’s already scheduled to meet and confer about this.
Jackson S. Trugman, Esq.
King, Holmes, Paterno & Soriano, LLP
direct: 310.282.8955
On Jul 17, 2023, at 4:58 PM, Jeremiah Reynolds wrote:
Absolutely not.
Jeremiah Reynolds
On Jul 17, 2023, at 4:51 PM, Jackson Trugman
wrote:
As you know we intend to file a demurrer. Will you agree to extend these
responses until that is decided? Otherwise we will seek a protective order
and our costs. Thanks.
Jackson S. Trugman, Esq.
King, Holmes, Paterno & Soriano, LLP
direct: 310.282.8955
On Jul 17, 2023, at 4:36 PM, Cammie Brennand
wrote:
Counsel,
Please find attached the below document:
PLAINTIFF STEAMROLLER, LLC’S REQUESTS
FOR INSPECTION
Thank you,
Cammie
EISNER, LLP
Cammie Brennand
Litigation Assistant
433 North Camden Drive | 4th Floor | Beverly Hills, CA 90210
T 310.888.4108 | F 310.855.3201
cbrennand@eisnerlaw.com| www.eisnerlaw.com
EXHIBIT C
1 KING, HOLMES, PATERNO & SORIANO, LLP
HOWARD E. KING, ESQ., STATE BAR NO. 77012
2 JACKSON S. TRUGMAN, ESQ., STATE BAR NO. 295145
JTRUGMAN@KHPSLAW.COM
3 1900 AVENUE OF THE STARS, 25TH FLOOR
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067-4506
4 TELEPHONE: (310) 282-8989
FACSIMILE: (310) 282-8903
5
Attorneys for Defendants SLIPKNOT, LLC,
6 SLIPKNOT, INC, KNOT PRODUCTIONS,
LLC, COREY TAYLOR and MICHAEL
7 SHAWN CRAHAN
8
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
11
12
STEAMROLLER, LLC, an Iowa Limited Case No, 23STCV13254
13 Liability Company,
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO
14 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF STEAMROLLER, LLC’S
REQUESTS FOR INSPECTION
15
vs. Action Filed: June 8, 2023
16
SLIPKNOT, LLC, a Delaware Limited
17 Liability Company; SLIPKNOT, INC., a
California Corporation; KNOT
18 PRODUCTIONS, LLC, a Delaware Limited
19 Liability Company; COREY TAYLOR, an
individual; and MICHAEL SHAWN
20 CRAHAN, an individual.
21
Defendants.
22
23
PROPOUNDING PARTY: PLAINTIFF STEAMROLLER, LLC
24
RESPONDING PARTIES: DEFENDANTS SLIPKNOT, LLC, SLIPKNOT, INC, KNOT
25
PRODUCTIONS, LLC, COREY TAYLOR and MICHAEL
26
SHAWN CRAHAN
27
SET NO.: ONE
28
3838.016/1956333.1
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF STEAMROLLER, LLC’S REQUEST FOR INSPECTION
1 Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2033.010 et seq., Defendants
2 SLIPKNOT, LLC, SLIPKNOT, INC, KNOT PRODUCTIONS, LLC, COREY TAYLOR and
3 MICHAEL SHAWN CRAHAN (“Defendants” or “Responding Parties”), hereby respond to the
4 first set of Requests for Inspection (“Requests”) of Plaintiff STEAMROLLER, LLC (“Plaintiff”
5 or “Propounding Party”) directed to the Responding Parties.
6 GENERAL OBJECTIONS
7 1. Responding Parties state these “General Objections” to the Requests, and by this
8 reference incorporates them into each of the individual responses below.
9 2. Responding Parties object to the Requests, and to each of them, to the extent they
10 seek information that is: (a) not relevant to the claims or defenses of any party or to the subject
11 matter involved in the pending action; or (b) that is neither admissible in evidence itself nor
12 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
13 3. Responding Parties object to the Requests, and to each of them, to the extent they
14 are overly broad as to time and scope, unduly burdensome, likely to cause substantial and
15 unwarranted expense, and seek to compel Responding Parties to impose obligations beyond the
16 scope of permissible discovery as contemplated by the Code of Civil Procedure or other applicable
17 law.
18 4. Responding Parties object to the Requests, and to each of them, to the extent they
19 seek information in the possession of Plaintiff or third parties or information that is a matter of
20 public record that is equally or more readily available to Plaintiff.
21 5. Responding Parties object to the definition of “YOU,” “YOUR,” and
22 “DEFENDANTS” as vague, ambiguous, uncertain, overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive,
23 and intended solely to harass, particularly in the context of the Requests, which demand the
24 delivery of unspecified items in “Defendants’ possession, custody, or control.”
25 6. Responding Parties object to the definition of “KNOTFEST” as vague, ambiguous,
26 uncertain, overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, and intended solely to harass, particularly
27 in that it refers to “any event at which any items . . . associated with the band Slipknot or its
28 members, are displayed.”
KING, HOLMES,
PATERNO &
SORIANO, LLP 3838.016/1956333.1 2
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF STEAMROLLER, LLC’S REQUEST FOR INSPECTION
1 7. Responding Parties object to the definition of “PLAINTIFF” as vague, ambiguous,
2 uncertain, overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, and intended solely to harass, particularly
3 in that Plaintiff purports to be a limited liabil
Preview
1 JEREMIAH REYNOLDS (SBN 223554) jreynolds@eisnerlaw.com 2 KATHERINE PIERUCCI (SBN 301051) kpierucci@eisnerlaw.com 3 EISNER, LLP 433 North Camden Drive, 4th Floor 4 Beverly Hills, California 90210 Electronically Received 10/04/2023 06:50 PM Telephone: (310) 855-3200 5 Facsimile: (310) 855-3201 6 Attorneys for Plaintiff, STEAMROLLER, LLC 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT 10 11 STEAMROLLER, LLC, an Iowa Limited Case No. 23STCV13254 Liability Company;, 12 The Hon. Armen Tamzarian Plaintiff, 13 PLAINTIFF STEAMROLLER, LLC’S vs. INFORMAL DISCOVERY 14 CONFERENCE STATEMENT SLIPKNOT, LLC, a Delaware Limited 15 Liability Company; SLIPKNOT, INC., a Judge: Hon. Armen Tamzarian California Corporation; KNOT Date: October 18, 2023 16 PRODUCTIONS, LLC; a Delaware Limited Time: 10:30 a.m. Liability Company; COREY TAYLOR, an Dept.: 52 17 individual residing in California; and MICHAEL SHAWN CRAHAN, an individual Action Filed: June 8, 2023 18 residing in California, 19 Defendants. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 EISNER, LLP 2848124 1 #2848124 v1 PLAINTIFF STEAMROLLER, LLC’S INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE STATEMENT 1 I. INTRODUCTION 2 Defendants Slipknot, LLC, Slipknot, Inc., Knot Productions, LLC, Corey Taylor, and 3 Michael Shawn Crahan’s (collectively, “Defendants”) have violated California law and obstructed 4 the discovery process by refusing to comply with Plaintiff Steamroller, LLC’s (“Plaintiff”) 5 demand for inspection. This case concerns Defendants’ wrongful possession of tangible items 6 belonging to the late, beloved metal drummer, Joey Jordison, and the successor-in-interest to 7 Jordison’s estate, Plaintiff. After filing this lawsuit and waiting for the statutory hold period to 8 expire, Plaintiff served an inspection demand on Defendants to inspect certain items in 9 Defendants’ possession in order to discover evidence in support of Plaintiff’s claims in this 10 litigation—i.e., that Defendants wrongfully possess items belonging to Plaintiff/Jordison. The 11 inspection is necessary for Plaintiff to discover what items are in Defendants’ possession so that 12 the parties may litigate the merits of the central issue of ownership in this case. 13 Notwithstanding Plaintiff’s clear entitlement to this discovery under California law, 14 Defendants have outright refused to comply. Defendants have taken the erroneous position that 15 they do not have to respond to any discovery until after Defendants’ now-pending demurrer is 16 decided. This argument lacks any legal basis. Indeed, California law permits discovery while a 17 demurrer is pending and even after a demurrer has been sustained with leave to amend so that the 18 claimant may discover “facts essential to his stating a cause of action.” Budget Finance Plan v. 19 Sup. Ct. (1973) 34 CA3d 794, 797; see also Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1990) 223 20 CA3d 1429, 1436 (“The right to discovery generally does not depend on the status of the 21 pleadings, i.e., the case need not be “at issue.”). Undeterred, Defendants served meritless, 22 boilerplate objections that fail to identify with particularity (or at all) the tangible things falling 23 within each category of item in the demand as required by CCP § 2031.240(b). In light of 24 Defendants’ wholesale refusal to participate in discovery, Plaintiff informed Defendants that 25 Plaintiff would move to compel. For the reasons set forth below, this Court should conclude that 26 Defendants must provide further written responses to Plaintiff’s demand for inspection and agree 27 to a date and location for inspection within thirty days of the informal discovery conference 28 (“IDC”) set for October 18, 2023. EISNER, LLP 2848124 2 #2848124 v1 PLAINTIFF STEAMROLLER, LLC’S INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE STATEMENT 1 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 2 Central to this case is Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendants wrongfully possess numerous 3 items that once belonged to Jordison, and are now the property of Plaintiff, the successor-in- 4 interest to Jordison’s estate. As is alleged in the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), Plaintiff first 5 discovered photographic evidence in October 2022 that Defendants wrongfully possess numerous 6 items belonging to Jordison/Plaintiff and that Defendants have been displaying these items (and 7 potentially numerous others belonging to Jordison/Plaintiff) for a profit at a travelling Slipknot 8 museum called Knotfest. (Id. ¶¶ 24-26.) Plaintiff thus filed this lawsuit alleging causes of action 9 for breach of contract, fraud and deceit, negligent misrepresentation, conversion, unjust 10 enrichment, and accounting based on, inter alia, Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendants possess 11 tangible items that legally belong to Plaintiff. Importantly, Plaintiff has alleged that it does not 12 have a comprehensive understanding of all of the items belonging to Plaintiff in Defendants’ 13 possession. (See, e.g., ¶ 3.) 14 After filing this lawsuit, Plaintiff served a narrow set of eight Requests for Inspection 15 (“Requests”) on Defendants, demanding that Defendants “provide for inspection the tangible items 16 set forth” in the Requests “to the offices” of Plaintiff’s counsel. (Pierucci Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A.) 17 Defendants refused to comply with the inspection based on the erroneous argument that discovery 18 is stayed until the case is at issue. (Id. ¶ 3, Ex. B.) Defendants served improper boilerplate 19 objections and no substantive response to Plaintiff’s Requests. (Id., Ex. C.) Despite Plaintiff’s 20 efforts to meet and confer with Defendants, Defendants have outright refused to comply with the 21 Requests and refused to propose an alternative date or location for the inspection. (Id. ¶ 4.) 22 III. PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO THE INSPECTION UNDER CCP SECTION 23 2031.010 24 Code of Civil Procured Section 2031.010 entitles Plaintiff to the inspection sought by the 25 Requests. The Requests seek a reasonable inspection of eight categories of tangible items in 26 Defendants’ possession: (i) items that belong to Plaintiff or Joey Jordison, (ii) items that were 27 displayed at Knotfest Japan 2023, (iii) items that have been displayed at any Knotfest, (iv) masks 28 that were worn by Jordison, (v) clothing that was worn by Jordison, (vi) shoes that were worn by EISNER, LLP 2848124 3 #2848124 v1 PLAINTIFF STEAMROLLER, LLC’S INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE STATEMENT 1 Jordison, (vii) musical instruments that were played by Jordison or belong to Plaintiff or Jordison, 2 and (viii) Slipknot memorabilia, Joey Jordison memorabilia, or memorabilia otherwise belonging 3 to Plaintiff or Jordison. (Id. Ex. A.) The Requests are thus reasonably calculated to discover highly 4 relevant evidence to this litigation— i.e., a comprehensive list of the items belonging to 5 Jordison/Plaintiff that remain in Defendants’ possession and what condition these items are in. 6 This discovery is necessary for the parties to litigate the question of ownership in this case. There 7 is therefore good cause for Plaintiff to move to compel compliance with the Requests, especially 8 given that Defendants have exclusive possession and knowledge of Plaintiff’s belongings at issue. 9 CCP § 2031.310(b)(1) (to prevail on a motion to compel further responses to an inspection 10 demand, the motion must set forth facts showing “good cause” justifying the discovery sought by 11 the inspection demand); TBG Ins. Services Corp. v. Superior Court, 96 Cal.App.4th 443, 444 12 (2002) (“Good cause” is satisfied by a mere showing of relevance). 13 IV. THERE IS NO DISCOVERY STAY IN THIS CASE 14 Defendants have taken the erroneous position that discovery is stayed until this Court rules 15 on Defendants’ now-pending demurrer and have therefore refused to comply with Plaintiff’s 16 inspection demand. (Pierucci Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. B.) But Plaintiff’s entitlement to discovery “does not 17 depend on the status of the pleadings, i.e., the case need not be ‘at issue.’” Mattco Forge, Inc., 18 223 CA3d at 1436. California law permits discovery while a demurrer is pending, and even after a 19 demurrer has been sustained with leave to amend so the claimant may discover “facts essential to 20 his stating a cause of action.” Budget Finance, 34 CA3d at 797. Defendants therefore have no 21 legal basis to refuse to comply with Plaintiff’s inspection demand. 22 V. DEFENDANTS’ WRITTEN OBJECTIONS ARE BOILERPLATE, 23 MERITLESS, AND IMPROPER UNDER CCP SECTION 2031.240(B) 24 Defendants’ objections are boilerplate, meritless, and violate California code. CCP § 25 2031.240(b) provides: 26 If the responding party objects to the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or 27 sampling of an item or category of item, the response shall do both of the following: 28 (1) Identify with particularity any document, tangible thing, land, or electronically EISNER, LLP 2848124 4 #2848124 v1 PLAINTIFF STEAMROLLER, LLC’S INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE STATEMENT 1 stored information falling within any category of item in the demand to which an 2 objection is being made and (2) Set forth clearly the extent of, and the specific 3 ground for, the objection. 4 Defendants have not even attempted to satisfy these requirements. 5 As a preliminary and dispositive matter, Defendants’ objections do not “[i]dentify with 6 particularity any . . . tangible thing . . . falling within any category of item in the demand.” See id. 7 Defendants’ objections therefore are not code-compliant and must be amended to comply with 8 CCP § 2031.240(b). Additionally, Defendants’ objections do not “[s]et forth clearly the extent of, 9 and the specific ground for, the objection.” Instead, Defendants objected to each Request using 10 the same meritless and boilerplate objections. 11 For example, Defendants objected to each of the Requests on the grounds that they fail to 12 “[s]pecify [the] inspection . . . or related activity that is being demanded, as well as the manner in 13 which that activity will be performed” and fail to “[s]pecify a reasonable place for making the 14 inspection.” (Pierucci Decl. Ex. C.) But the opening paragraph of the Requests specifies Plaintiff’s 15 counsel’s law office for the inspection, specifies that the inspection shall take place within thirty 16 (30) days of service, and notes that “[a]ll tangible items shall be transported and produced in their 17 current condition (as of the date of this Request) and within the coordinating drum case, travel 18 case, or other protective packaging to ensure that no tangible items are damaged in transit.” (Id. 19 Ex. A.) Requests 1 through 8 then specify the particular items that are sought for inspection. (See 20 id.) 21 Next, Defendants objected to all Requests on the grounds that the location specified for 22 the inspection (i.e., Plaintiff’s counsel’s law office) is “harassing, oppressive, overly broad, and 23 unduly burdensome.” (Id. Ex. C.) But Defendants did not and still have not proposed an 24 alternative location for the inspection. That Defendants stole Plaintiff’s belongings and shipped 25 them across the world to profit off of them is not a valid basis for Defendants to refuse to produce 26 Plaintiff’s belongings for inspection. Defendants have no one to blame for the alleged “burden” 27 and “special attendant” costs of complying with the Requests than themselves. Defendants had 28 thirty days to respond to the Requests and to make arrangements to produce the requested items EISNER, LLP 2848124 5 #2848124 v1 PLAINTIFF STEAMROLLER, LLC’S INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE STATEMENT 1 for inspection (and could have, but elected not to, seek a courtesy extension of time). But 2 Defendants did not even attempt to comply with their discovery obligations. 3 Defendants further object to every Request on the grounds of vagueness and ambiguity, 4 and that the Requests do not “specifically describe[e] each individual item or . . . reasonably 5 particulariz[e] each category of item.” (Id. Ex. C.) This is simply not the case. Each of the eight 6 Requests served on Defendants is specific and straightforward. (See Section III.A; Pierucci Decl. 7 Ex. A.) Moreover, Requests 4–8 contain lists of specific examples of items that fit into the 8 categories of items requested. (Id. Ex. A.) Defendants’ objections on the grounds of vagueness 9 and/or ambiguity are therefore frivolous. 10 VI. CONCLUSION 11 In light of the foregoing, the Court should conclude that Defendants must provide further 12 written responses to Plaintiff’s demand for inspection and agree to a date and location for 13 inspection within thirty days of this IDC. 14 DATED: October 4, 2023 EISNER LLP 15 16 By: 17 JEREMIAH REYNOLDS KATHERINE PIERUCCI 18 Attorneys for Plaintiff, STEAMROLLER, LLC 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 EISNER, LLP 2848124 6 #2848124 v1 PLAINTIFF STEAMROLLER, LLC’S INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE STATEMENT 1 DECLARATION OF KATHERINE PIERUCCI 2 I, Katherine Pierucci, declare as follows: 3 1. I am an attorney licensed to practice before this Court, and am Senior Counsel with 4 the law firm of Eisner LLP, attorneys of record herein for Plaintiff Steamroller, LLC (“Plaintiff”). 5 I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein, which are known by me to be true and 6 correct, and, if called upon to testify as a witness, I could and would competently testify thereto. I 7 make this Declaration in support of Plaintiff’s Informal Discovery Conference Statement. 8 2. On July 17, 2023, Plaintiff served Requests for Inspection (“Requests”) on 9 Defendants Slipknot, LLC, Slipknot Inc., Knot Productions, LLC, Corey Taylor, and Michael 10 Shawn Crahan (collectively “Defendants”). A true and correct copy of the Requests is attached 11 hereto as Exhibit A. 12 3. Defendants refused to comply with the Requests based on the erroneous argument 13 that discovery is stayed until the case is at issue. A true and correct copy of the email I received 14 from Defendants’ counsel, Jackson Trugman, on July 24, 2023 in the ordinary course of business 15 is attached hereto as Exhibit B. Defendants failed to comply or even offer an alternative date or 16 location for the inspection, nor did Defendants request a courtesy extension to comply with the 17 inspection demand. On August 18, 2023, Defendants served objections to each of the Requests. 18 A true and correct copy of Defendants’ objections to the Requests is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 19 4. Despite my efforts to meet and confer with Mr. Trugman, Defendants continued to 20 refuse to comply with the Requests. I informed Mr. Trugman that in light of Defendants’ refusal 21 to comply with the Requests and Defendants’ meritless objections, Plaintiff intended to move 22 forward with a motion to compel and seek sanctions. 23 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 24 foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this 4th day of October, 2023, at Beverly Hills, 25 California. 26 27 Katherine Pierucci 28 EISNER, LLP 2848124 7 #2848124 v1 PLAINTIFF STEAMROLLER, LLC’S INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE STATEMENT EXHIBIT A 1 JEREMIAH REYNOLDS (SBN 223554) jreynolds@eisnerlaw.com 2 KATHERINE PIERUCCI (SBN 301051) kpierucci@eisnerlaw.com 3 EISNER, LLP 433 North Camden Drive, 4th Floor 4 Beverly Hills, California 90210 Telephone: (310) 855-3200 5 Facsimile: (310) 855-3201 6 Attorneys for Plaintiff, STEAMROLLER, LLC 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT 10 11 STEAMROLLER, LLC, an Iowa Limited Case No. 23STCV13254 Liability Company;, 12 The Hon. Armen Tamzarian Plaintiff, 13 PLAINTIFF STEAMROLLER, LLC’S vs. REQUESTS FOR INSPECTION 14 SLIPKNOT, LLC, a Delaware Limited Action Filed: June 8, 2023 15 Liability Company; SLIPKNOT, INC., a California Corporation; KNOT 16 PRODUCTIONS, LLC; a Delaware Limited Liability Company; COREY TAYLOR, an 17 individual residing in California; and MICHAEL SHAWN CRAHAN, an individual 18 residing in California, 19 Defendants. 20 21 PROPOUNDING PARTIES: Plaintiff STEAMROLLER, LLC 22 RESPONDING PARTIES: Defendants SLIPKNOT, LLC, SLIPKNOT, INC. KNOT 23 PRODUCTIONS, LLC, COREY TAYLOR and MICHAEL 24 SHAWN CRAHAN 25 SET NO.: One 26 27 28 2843771 1 PLAINTIFF STEAMROLLER, LLC’S REQUESTS FOR INSPECTION TO DEFENDANTS SLIPKNOT, LLC, EISNER, LLP SLIPKNOT, INC. KNOT PRODUCTIONS, LLC, COREY TAYLOR AND MICHAEL SHAWN CRAHAN, SET #2843771 v1 ONE 1 Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031.010, et seq., Plaintiff 2 Steamroller, LLC (“Steamroller”), by and through their attorneys of record, hereby request that 3 Defendants Slipknot, LLC, Slipknot, Inc., Knot Productions, LLC, Corey Taylor, and Michael 4 Shawn Crahan (“Defendants”) provide for inspection the tangible items set forth below to the 5 offices of Eisner, LLP, 433 North Camden Drive, 4th Floor, Beverly Hills, California 90210, 6 within thirty (30) days of service hereof. All tangible items shall be transported and produced in 7 their current condition (as of the date of this Request) and within the coordinating drum case, 8 travel case, or other protective packaging to ensure that no tangible items are damaged in transit. 9 DEFINITIONS 10 A. The terms “YOU” or “YOUR” refers individual and collectively to Defendants 11 Slipknot, LLC, Slipknot, Inc., Knot Productions, LLC, Corey Taylor, and Michael Shawn Crahan, 12 and anyone else acting, or who has so acted, on their behalf including, but not limited to, any of 13 their agents, representatives, employees (current and former), affiliates, predecessors, successors, 14 assigns, principals, independent contractors, managers, consultants, attorneys, accountants, and 15 each and every person acting on their behalf or at their direction or on whose behalf they were 16 acting with respect to the matters referred to herein. 17 A. The term “KNOTFEST” refers to any event at which any items, including but not 18 limited to musical instruments, equipment, gear, clothing items, shoes, artifacts, merchandise, or 19 memorabilia, associated with the band Slipknot or its members, are displayed, including but not 20 limited to events titled “Knotfest.” 21 B. The term “DEFENDANTS” refers to SLIPKNOT, LLC, SLIPKNOT, INC., KNOT 22 PRODUCTIONS, LLC, COREY TAYLOR, and MICHAEL SHAWN CRAHAN, and anyone 23 else acting, or who has so acted, on their behalf including, but not limited to, any of their agents, 24 representatives, employees (current and former), affiliates, predecessors, successors, assigns, 25 principals, independent contractors, managers, consultants, attorneys, accountants, and each and 26 every person acting on their behalf or at their direction or on whose behalf they were acting with 27 respect to the matters referred to herein. 28 2843771 C. The term “PLAINTIFF” refers to Steamroller, LLC and anyone else acting, or who 2 PLAINTIFF STEAMROLLER, LLC’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO DEFENDANTS SLIPKNOT, LLC, EISNER, LLP SLIPKNOT, INC. KNOT PRODUCTIONS, LLC, COREY TAYLOR AND MICHAEL SHAWN CRAHAN, SET #2843771 v1 ONE 1 has so acted, on its behalf including, but not limited to, any of its agents, representatives, 2 employees (current and former), affiliates, predecessors, successors, assigns, principals, 3 independent contractors, managers, consultants, attorneys, accountants, and each and every person 4 acting on its behalf or at his direction or on whose behalf they were acting with respect to the 5 matters referred to herein. 6 REQUESTS FOR INSPECTION 7 REQUEST FOR INSPECTION NO. 1: 8 Produce for inspection all items in Defendants’ possession, custody, or control that belong 9 to Plaintiff or Joey Jordison. 10 REQUEST FOR INSPECTION NO. 2: 11 Produce for inspection all items in Defendants’ possession, custody, or control that were 12 displayed at Knotfest Japan 2023. 13 REQUEST FOR INSPECTION NO. 3: 14 Produce for inspection all items in Defendants’ possession, custody, or control that have 15 been displayed at Knotfest. 16 REQUEST FOR INSPECTION NO. 4: 17 Produce for inspection all masks in Defendants’ possession, custody, or control that were 18 worn by Joey Jordison or otherwise belong to Joey Jordison or Plaintiff, including but not limited 19 to the following: green, white, yellowed, drip mouth, and blank white masks. 20 REQUEST FOR INSPECTION NO. 5: 21 Produce for inspection all clothing items in Defendants’ possession, custody, or control 22 that were worn by Joey Jordison or otherwise belong to Joey Jordison or Plaintiff, including but 23 not limited to the “All Hope is Gone” jacket displayed at Knotfest Japan 2023. 24 REQUEST FOR INSPECTION NO. 6: 25 Produce for inspection all shoes in Defendants’ possession, custody, or control that were 26 worn by Joey Jordison or otherwise belong to Joey Jordison or Plaintiff, including but not limited 27 to the Adidas Samba tennis shoes. 28 REQUEST 2843771 FOR INSPECTION NO. 7: 3 PLAINTIFF STEAMROLLER, LLC’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO DEFENDANTS SLIPKNOT, LLC, EISNER, LLP SLIPKNOT, INC. KNOT PRODUCTIONS, LLC, COREY TAYLOR AND MICHAEL SHAWN CRAHAN, SET #2843771 v1 ONE 1 Produce for inspection all musical instruments and equipment in Defendants’ possession, 2 custody, or control that were played or used by Joey Jordison or otherwise belong to Joey Jordison 3 or Plaintiff, including but not limited to drumsticks in tin bucket, signature wrapped drumsticks, 4 6x12 Rocket Tom, 6x15 Rocket Tom, 6x21 Rocket Tom, 14x14 Floor Tom, 16x16 Floor Tom, 5 22x18 Bass Drum, 22x18 Bass Drum, 20x14 Gong Drum, and drum case. 6 REQUEST FOR INSPECTION NO. 8: 7 Produce for inspection all Slipknot memorabilia, Joey Jordison memorabilia, or 8 memorabilia otherwise belonging to Joey Jordison or Plaintiff in Defendants’ possession, custody, 9 or control, including but not limited to the Joey puppet doll and purgatory head. 10 11 DATED: July 12, 2023 EISNER LLP 12 13 By: 14 JEREMIAH REYNOLDS Attorneys for Plaintiff Steamroller, LLC 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2843771 4 PLAINTIFF STEAMROLLER, LLC’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO DEFENDANTS SLIPKNOT, LLC, EISNER, LLP SLIPKNOT, INC. KNOT PRODUCTIONS, LLC, COREY TAYLOR AND MICHAEL SHAWN CRAHAN, SET #2843771 v1 ONE 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 STEAMROLLER, LLC vs. SLIPKNOT, LLC, ET AL. 23STCV13254 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 4 At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. I am 5 employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. My business address is 433 N. Camden Dr., 4th Floor, Beverly Hills, California 90210. 6 On July 17, 2023, I served true copies of the following document(s) described as 7 PLAINTIFF STEAMROLLER, LLC’S REQUESTS FOR INSPECTION on the interested parties in this action as follows: 8 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST 9 BY MAIL: I enclosed the document(s) in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the 10 persons at the addresses listed in the Service List and placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with the practice of 11 Eisner LLP for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of 12 business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid. I am a resident or employed in the county where the mailing occurred. The envelope was placed in 13 the mail at Beverly Hills, California. 14 BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: I caused courtesy copies of the document(s) to be sent from e-mail address cbrennand@eisnerlaw.com to the persons at the e-mail 15 addresses listed in the Service List. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. 16 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 17 foregoing is true and correct. 18 Executed on July 17, 2023, at Beverly Hills, California. 19 20 Cammie R Brennand 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2843771 5 PLAINTIFF STEAMROLLER, LLC’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO DEFENDANTS SLIPKNOT, LLC, EISNER, LLP SLIPKNOT, INC. KNOT PRODUCTIONS, LLC, COREY TAYLOR AND MICHAEL SHAWN CRAHAN, SET #2843771 v1 ONE 1 SERVICE LIST STEAMROLLER, LLC Vs. SLIPKNOT, LLC, ET AL. 2 23STCV13254 3 4 Jackson Trugman, Esq. Attorney for SLIPKNOT, LLC, SLIPKNOT, INC. 5 jtrugman@khpslaw.com KNOT PRODUCTIONS, LLC, COREY King, Holmes, Paterno & Soriano, LLP TAYLOR and MICHAEL SHAWN CRAHAN 6 1900 Ave of the Stars, 25th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 7 Direct: 310.282.8956 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2843771 6 PLAINTIFF STEAMROLLER, LLC’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO DEFENDANTS SLIPKNOT, LLC, EISNER, LLP SLIPKNOT, INC. KNOT PRODUCTIONS, LLC, COREY TAYLOR AND MICHAEL SHAWN CRAHAN, SET #2843771 v1 ONE EXHIBIT B From: Katie Pierucci To: Jackson Trugman; Jeremiah Reynolds Cc: Cammie Brennand Subject: RE: Steamroller, LLC vs. Slipknot, LLC, et al. - Case No. 23STCV13254 Date: Monday, July 24, 2023 5:22:17 PM Jackson, we intend to file an amended complaint in response to the items raised below and on our call. We have also considered your renewed request for a discovery stay in this case until Defendants’ contemplated demurrer is decided by the Court. California law permits discovery before a case is at issue, while a demurrer is pending, and while parties await the filing of an amended complaint. In light of this, we are unwilling to agree to an extended discovery stay. The right to discovery generally does not depend on the status of the pleadings. I.e., the case need not be “at issue.” [Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1990) 223 CA3d 1429, 1436, 273 CR 262, 265—sanctions upheld for refusal to make discovery because demurrer pending] Deficiencies in the pleadings generally do not affect either party's right to conduct discovery. Thus, for example, discovery may continue after a demurrer has been sustained with leave to amend, although no amended complaint has yet been filed—i.e., no valid complaint need be on file. [Budget Finance Plan v. Sup.Ct. (McDowell) (1973) 34 CA3d 794, 797, 110 CR 302, 304] From: Jackson Trugman Sent: Monday, July 24, 2023 9:55 AM To: Katie Pierucci ; Jeremiah Reynolds Cc: Cammie Brennand Subject: RE: Steamroller, LLC vs. Slipknot, LLC, et al. - Case No. 23STCV13254 Thanks, and if you decide to amend, I truly hope you reconsider my reasonable request to stay the discovery responses. Jackson S. Trugman, Esq. King, Holmes, Paterno & Soriano, LLP direct: 310.282.8955 From: Katie Pierucci Sent: Monday, July 24, 2023 9:53 AM To: Jackson Trugman ; Jeremiah Reynolds Cc: Cammie Brennand Subject: RE: Steamroller, LLC vs. Slipknot, LLC, et al. - Case No. 23STCV13254 Jackson, we are working on the declaration and plan to have it on file in short order. As for your demurrer arguments raised below, let’s discuss further on the call, and we will get you an answer on whether we will amend by EOD. From: Jackson Trugman Sent: Monday, July 24, 2023 9:28 AM To: Jeremiah Reynolds Cc: Cammie Brennand ; Katie Pierucci Subject: RE: Steamroller, LLC vs. Slipknot, LLC, et al. - Case No. 23STCV13254 Good morning, Are you able to respond to the two emails below before our 2pm call today? Thanks. Jackson S. Trugman, Esq. King, Holmes, Paterno & Soriano, LLP direct: 310.282.8955 From: Jackson Trugman Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2023 12:16 PM To: 'Jeremiah Reynolds' Cc: 'Cammie Brennand' ; 'Katie Pierucci' Subject: RE: Steamroller, LLC vs. Slipknot, LLC, et al. - Case No. 23STCV13254 Could you also let us know when your client will be filing the sworn affidavit pursuant to CCP 377.32? Jackson S. Trugman, Esq. King, Holmes, Paterno & Soriano, LLP direct: 310.282.8955 From: Jackson Trugman Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2023 1:19 PM To: Jeremiah Reynolds Cc: Cammie Brennand ; Katie Pierucci Subject: RE: Steamroller, LLC vs. Slipknot, LLC, et al. - Case No. 23STCV13254 In the meantime, are you able to explain to me why the claims are not obviously time-barred? The alleged successor in interest’s “knowledge” is irrevant, considering the claims all expired at least two years before Mr. Jordinson’s death (and in any event were filed outside of the six-month window in CCP 366.1). There is no allegation of fraud or concelament, nor could there be given your contradictory allegations that these were “his most iconic belonings,” which were supposedly itemized in the agreement after being “expressly negotiated” by Mr. Jordison, and were to be transferred from a partnership of which he was recently a partner. There are, in fact, no allegations whatsoever as to Mr. Jordison’s knowledge and/or his reasonable diligence. See Ventura29 LLC v. City of San Buenaventura, 87 Cal. App. 5th 1028, 1045 (2023) (“In the complaint appellant made allegations only as to its own lack of discovery,” not that of the “prior owners.”). It’s your burden here. April Enterprises, Inc. v. KTTV, 147 Cal. App. 3d 805, 832 (1983) (“plaintiff must plead facts sufficient to convince the trial judge that delayed discovery was justified”). And, frankly, the discovery rule does not even apply in this type of case, if if you could somehow allege new facts. See Alfaro v. Cmty. Hous. Improvement Sys. & Plan. Assn., Inc., 171 Cal. App. 4th 1356, 1397 (2009) (“[T]he discovery rule is generally inapplicable to alleged breaches of contract unless there is a breach of fiduciary duty.”). I’m trying to save a bunch of wasted time briefing discovery motions and demurrers, and hopefully you are able to provide more than a two-word response. Thanks. Jackson S. Trugman, Esq. King, Holmes, Paterno & Soriano, LLP direct: 310.282.8955 From: Jackson Trugman Sent: Monday, July 17, 2023 5:31 PM To: Jeremiah Reynolds Cc: Cammie Brennand ; Katie Pierucci Subject: Re: Steamroller, LLC vs. Slipknot, LLC, et al. - Case No. 23STCV13254 Then we can use the meet and confer that’s already scheduled to meet and confer about this. Jackson S. Trugman, Esq. King, Holmes, Paterno & Soriano, LLP direct: 310.282.8955 On Jul 17, 2023, at 4:58 PM, Jeremiah Reynolds wrote: Absolutely not. Jeremiah Reynolds On Jul 17, 2023, at 4:51 PM, Jackson Trugman wrote: As you know we intend to file a demurrer. Will you agree to extend these responses until that is decided? Otherwise we will seek a protective order and our costs. Thanks. Jackson S. Trugman, Esq. King, Holmes, Paterno & Soriano, LLP direct: 310.282.8955 On Jul 17, 2023, at 4:36 PM, Cammie Brennand wrote: Counsel, Please find attached the below document: PLAINTIFF STEAMROLLER, LLC’S REQUESTS FOR INSPECTION Thank you, Cammie EISNER, LLP Cammie Brennand Litigation Assistant 433 North Camden Drive | 4th Floor | Beverly Hills, CA 90210 T 310.888.4108 | F 310.855.3201 cbrennand@eisnerlaw.com| www.eisnerlaw.com EXHIBIT C 1 KING, HOLMES, PATERNO & SORIANO, LLP HOWARD E. KING, ESQ., STATE BAR NO. 77012 2 JACKSON S. TRUGMAN, ESQ., STATE BAR NO. 295145 JTRUGMAN@KHPSLAW.COM 3 1900 AVENUE OF THE STARS, 25TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067-4506 4 TELEPHONE: (310) 282-8989 FACSIMILE: (310) 282-8903 5 Attorneys for Defendants SLIPKNOT, LLC, 6 SLIPKNOT, INC, KNOT PRODUCTIONS, LLC, COREY TAYLOR and MICHAEL 7 SHAWN CRAHAN 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 11 12 STEAMROLLER, LLC, an Iowa Limited Case No, 23STCV13254 13 Liability Company, DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO 14 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF STEAMROLLER, LLC’S REQUESTS FOR INSPECTION 15 vs. Action Filed: June 8, 2023 16 SLIPKNOT, LLC, a Delaware Limited 17 Liability Company; SLIPKNOT, INC., a California Corporation; KNOT 18 PRODUCTIONS, LLC, a Delaware Limited 19 Liability Company; COREY TAYLOR, an individual; and MICHAEL SHAWN 20 CRAHAN, an individual. 21 Defendants. 22 23 PROPOUNDING PARTY: PLAINTIFF STEAMROLLER, LLC 24 RESPONDING PARTIES: DEFENDANTS SLIPKNOT, LLC, SLIPKNOT, INC, KNOT 25 PRODUCTIONS, LLC, COREY TAYLOR and MICHAEL 26 SHAWN CRAHAN 27 SET NO.: ONE 28 3838.016/1956333.1 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF STEAMROLLER, LLC’S REQUEST FOR INSPECTION 1 Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2033.010 et seq., Defendants 2 SLIPKNOT, LLC, SLIPKNOT, INC, KNOT PRODUCTIONS, LLC, COREY TAYLOR and 3 MICHAEL SHAWN CRAHAN (“Defendants” or “Responding Parties”), hereby respond to the 4 first set of Requests for Inspection (“Requests”) of Plaintiff STEAMROLLER, LLC (“Plaintiff” 5 or “Propounding Party”) directed to the Responding Parties. 6 GENERAL OBJECTIONS 7 1. Responding Parties state these “General Objections” to the Requests, and by this 8 reference incorporates them into each of the individual responses below. 9 2. Responding Parties object to the Requests, and to each of them, to the extent they 10 seek information that is: (a) not relevant to the claims or defenses of any party or to the subject 11 matter involved in the pending action; or (b) that is neither admissible in evidence itself nor 12 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 13 3. Responding Parties object to the Requests, and to each of them, to the extent they 14 are overly broad as to time and scope, unduly burdensome, likely to cause substantial and 15 unwarranted expense, and seek to compel Responding Parties to impose obligations beyond the 16 scope of permissible discovery as contemplated by the Code of Civil Procedure or other applicable 17 law. 18 4. Responding Parties object to the Requests, and to each of them, to the extent they 19 seek information in the possession of Plaintiff or third parties or information that is a matter of 20 public record that is equally or more readily available to Plaintiff. 21 5. Responding Parties object to the definition of “YOU,” “YOUR,” and 22 “DEFENDANTS” as vague, ambiguous, uncertain, overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, 23 and intended solely to harass, particularly in the context of the Requests, which demand the 24 delivery of unspecified items in “Defendants’ possession, custody, or control.” 25 6. Responding Parties object to the definition of “KNOTFEST” as vague, ambiguous, 26 uncertain, overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, and intended solely to harass, particularly 27 in that it refers to “any event at which any items . . . associated with the band Slipknot or its 28 members, are displayed.” KING, HOLMES, PATERNO & SORIANO, LLP 3838.016/1956333.1 2 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF STEAMROLLER, LLC’S REQUEST FOR INSPECTION 1 7. Responding Parties object to the definition of “PLAINTIFF” as vague, ambiguous, 2 uncertain, overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, and intended solely to harass, particularly 3 in that Plaintiff purports to be a limited liabil