Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00371/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00371-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 06cv371 NLS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD ALLEN, an individual,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE GHOULISH GALLERY, an entity of

unknown form; TIM TURNER, an individual,

APRIL TURNER, an individual, and DOES 1

through 10, inclusive,

Defendants. 

TIM TURNER, an individual, APRIL

TURNER, an individual, dba THE

GHOULISH GALLERY,

Counterclaimants,

v.

EDWARD ALLEN, an individual,

Counterdefendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 06cv371 NLS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX

PARTE APPLICATION FOR THE

COURT TO BE THE CUSTODIAN OF

CERTAIN EVIDENCE

[Doc. No. 137]

Case 3:06-cv-00371-NLS Document 142 Filed 12/21/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2 06cv371 NLS

This case came on for a bench trial October 1-5, 2007. The Court entered judgment in favor of

Plaintiff and against Defendant for two of Plaintiff’s claims, against Plaintiff and in favor of Defendant

for Plaintiff’s remaining claims, and in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant for Defendant’s

counterclaims. At trial, the Court admitted the journal of Defendant’s mother as an exhibit (Trial Ex.

180-6), but did not give weight to the journal entries because the journal’s author did not testify, the

handwriting of some of the relevant entries appeared to differ and the Court could not discern the date of

the last relevant entry.

Plaintiff suspects that the journal is forged and now asks this Court to preserve the original

journal for use in future proceedings, including an alleged pending action in California Superior Court

for malicious prosecution against Defendant and his attorneys. Defendant does not oppose the Court

maintaining the journal in its custody, but asks that it be available for a possible deposition of

Defendant’s mother and for inspection by any of Defendant’s retained experts for use in other

proceedings.

Plaintiff has not set forth any compelling reason for the Court to grant his request. First, he asks

that this Court maintain the journal for litigation that would be subject to the jurisdiction of another

court. Second, according to Local Civil Rule 79.1, it is Defendant’s counsel’s responsibility to

maintain the journal for use in any future proceedings. This Court has no reason–and no authority–to

maintain custody of the journal while Plaintiff pursues claims involving the journal in another court. 

Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s ex parte application.

Plaintiff shall arrange to retrieve from the Clerk’s office the original exhibit binders and frame

he provided to the Court, and Defendant shall arrange to retrieve from the Clerk’s office the journal and

framed portraits he provided to the Court as exhibits, by January 11, 2008.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 21, 2007

Hon. Nita L. Stormes

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00371-NLS Document 142 Filed 12/21/07 Page 2 of 2