The back and forth between AMC and Frank Darabont with his CAA team continued on Tuesday with the Network attempting to temporarily halt the former Walking Dead showrunner’s lawsuit.
Videos by ComicBook.com
“This Court should immediately halt proceedings in this case, rather than rule on the pending cross-motions for summary judgment,” AMC attorneys requested of Justice Eileen Bransten on Tuesday in what was the least confrontational statement exchanged.
“Their new allegations are a ‘heads I win, tails you lose’ strategy — no matter how this Court rules, they will attempt to retry the case all over again,” said Orin Snyder of Gibson Dunn of the separate $10 million action that attorneys for Darabont and CAA filed on January 18. “This is unfair. This is wrong,” Snyder said.
The note comes as a response to a note from Darabont and the CAA’s lawyers. “AMC improperly and egregiously redacted Kirkman’s agreement when it was produced to Plaintiffs in discovery in the prior pending action,” Darabont’s team claims.
AMC, however, is quickly disputing the claims. “For that reason alone, this Court should not go any further without considering how the new complaint bears on — and disrupts — the fair administration of justice in this case,” Snyder declares, promising to file a motion to halt to the ensuing progress of the case soon and wishing for a hearing on the matter. According to Deadline, AMC’s move could temporarily put the case on hold, adding to the already long-awaited ruling on both sides’ summary judgment motions. It could ultimately put the trail on hold until late 2018 or early 2019.
Darabont and the CAA’s lawyers have since responded to AMC’s rebuttal.
“AMC’s written communication directly to Justice Bransten, while the Court is preparing to rule on Darabont’s dispositive motion, is both outrageous and manifestly improper,” said attorney Dale Kinsella of the correspondence. “Worse, it should be obvious from even a casual reading of the letter that AMC is desperately seeking to divert attention away from its wrongful conduct during the three years of discovery in the underlying Darabont action.”
“When Justice Bransten takes up the question of what sanctions are appropriate for AMC’s deplorable conduct, it will be decided not on the basis of AMC’s hysterical 11th hour plea to halt the case, but on a fully developed record,” Kinsella declares. “Finally, AMC’s letter, written by its new counsel, reflects either a misunderstanding of the facts or a deliberate attempt to mislead the Court about the nature of the two separate actions. Darabont and CAA will be filing a further response to AMC’s frivolous letter in the days to come.”
