Attorneys trade sanctions motions in Led Zeppelin 9th Circuit row

An attorney for Led Zeppelin on Monday said his opposing counsel's sanction request is so baseless he should be sanctioned for it.

The dueling motions follow a Sept. 24 en banc hearing in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in which Led Zeppelin counsel Peter J. Anderson argued the court's prior remand of his district court win should be overturned.

Francis A. Malofiy, a Philadelphia-based sole practitioner representing plaintiff Michael Skidmore, claimed Anderson made "breathtakingly false" statements to the court, accorind to a sanctions request filed Oct.3.

Malifoy claimed he noted deficiencies in the deposit copy in a summary judgment motion, and Anderson's statements were "knowingly false" because defense counsel have since referenced the motion in their own court papers.

Malifoy said he reached out to Anderson to notify him of his intent to file for sanctions and claims Anderson responded with "a vague threat," telling him "Your accusation is of course not correct and I strongly suggest you reconsider rather than face the risk of the court imposing sanctions on you, your co-counsel, and your client," according to the Oct. 3 motion.

It wasn't so much a vague threat as a direct promise as Anderson followed up Monday with a reply seeking to impose sanctions against Malifoy. Michael Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin, et al., 16-56057 (9th Cir., filed July 25 2016).

Anderson, a partner at Davis, Wright & Tremaine LLP, said in his Monday filing Malifoy's "baseless" motion for sanctions is intended to convince the court Malifoy made arguments "that he in fact never made" after failing to raise them during rebuttal.

"Plaintiff's complaint and amended complaint each failed to even mention the Taurus deposit copy and, instead, referred to claimed similarities in performance elements such as 'tempo' and 'instrumentation' that do not appear in the Taurus sheet music," Anderson wrote. "Plaintiff also did not produce the Taurus deposit copy in discovery. Instead, it was produced by defendants."

In addition to a motion to strike Anderson's oral argument in favor of reversing the trial remand, Malifoy asked for a "symbolic monetary sanction of $1." Conversely, Anderson asked the court to consider broader sanctions against Malifoy, including the cost of his own legal fees for having to respond to Malifoy's motion.

The court had yet to respond to Malifoy's initial request as of Monday, and the parties are still awaiting the en banc panel's ruling.