Welcome to the Weintraub Tobin Resources Page

Browse below for news, legal insights, information on presentations and events, and other resources from the Weintraub Tobin legal team.


Overlooked Provisions when Negotiating Purchase and Sale Contracts

In protracted contract negotiations, many clients become dismayed when a deal they thought had been agreed in a letter of intent is suddenly the subject of contentious exchanges between the parties and their counsel. The clients may be comfortable with the purchase price or due diligence timelines, but many clients have never considered, let alone negotiated, the various other critical terms in a purchase contract.  These terms are often as, if not more, important, as they will define the scope of the parties’ rights relating to the transaction and exposure for lawsuits after closing. This article is designed to give a primer on the basics of these concepts so that parties may be better prepared when negotiating their purchase contracts at the letter of intent stage.

District Court Considers Acceptable Limits to Attorney Participation in Drafting of Expert Reports

In Munchkin, Inc. v. Tomy International, Inc., 1-18-cv-06337 (NDIL May. 24, 2022) the Court considered the permissible extent of attorney participation in the preparation of an expert report. The Court did so in response to plaintiff’s motion to exclude the testimony of defendant’s technical expert for failing to prepare his own report. Specifically, plaintiff Munchkin sought to exclude the opinion of defendant TOMY’s technical expert, Jesse Darley, who offered opinions regarding non-infringement.

Senator Hawley’s Sham Copyright Reform Bill Takes Aim at The Walt Disney Company

Last week, Senator Josh Hawley proposed a new copyright bill in the Senate that would have the effect of eviscerating existing copyrights for certain parties. The bill is known as the Copyright Clause Restoration Act. The bill would only affect entities with market caps exceeding $150 billion, which for practical purposes demonstrates that it is unambiguously intended to punish the Walt Disney Company for Disney’s recent stance against the “Don’t Say Gay” bill in Florida. As if the legislation itself didn’t make its vindictive intent clear, Senator Hawley’s office released a statement saying that, “Thanks to special copyright protections from Congress, woke corporations like Disney have earned billions while increasingly pandering to woke activists.” This isn’t just absurd, but its patently false. Disney doesn’t receive special copyright protections. Those protections exist for all copyright holders that choose to take full advantage of the Copyright Act. After reviewing the legislation, it’s clear that this is nothing more than the Senator pandering to his base, and not a serious attempt to reform copyright law.

Breaking News – Premium Pay Constitutes Wages!

We previously advised employers that the California Supreme Court agreed to review the Court of Appeal decision Gustavo Naranjo v Spectrum Security Services, Inc. (“Naranjo”), decided by the Second Appellate District in 2019. On May 23, 2022, the California Supreme Court issued its decision, which has significant and immediate impacts on California employers. The key takeaways are:

Choreographer Challenges Fortnite’s Use of His Copyrighted Dance Moves

A recent case filed by famous choreographer Kyle Hanagami is set to test the boundaries of copyright law in video games and on social media.

Mr. Hanagami is a popular choreographer with a large YouTube presence.  He won the 2020 iHeart Music Award for Favorite Music Video Choreography for BlackPink’s “Kill This Love” and holds the title for YouTube’s most viewed choreography video of all time. Crucially, he also holds the copyright to the dance to the Charlie Puth song “How Long.”

No Good Deed Goes Unpunished? Use Lawyers to Avoid Trouble Related to Background Checks

A precedential decision last week by the California Court of Appeal may leave some employers feeling like no good deed goes unpunished. That decision ruled that a jury would have to decide if an employer willfully violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FRCA”) by letting a non-attorney manager communicate with outside lawyers to ensure that its background checks were in compliance with the FRCA.