Battle For Superman Rights Slowly Glides Forward

As the Man Of Steel is being prepped to fly Summer 2013 we haven't heard much over the battle of Superman that is slowly being fought in the courtrooms.

The latest skirmish in what is a long drawn out war involves DC Comics arguing that they should have complete access to legal documents which Toberoff has claimed were stolen from him are are privileged.

I'm not going to pretend to be some kind of guru of law, you can read more details below of hearing before the 9th Circuit in Pasadena or click HERE for the original documents filed with the court on May 14, 2012

On Tuesday, counsel for attorney Marc Toberoff went before the three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit in Pasadena, challenging an order for the production of privileged documents that were allegedly stolen from Toberoff's law firm by another attorney and handed to Warner Brothers during representation of the heirs of Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, the creators of Superman.

The publisher's complaint says that Toberoff persuaded the Siegel and Shuster's heirs to terminate their agreements with DC Comics and file invalid copyright notices. The heirs entered into a joint venture with Toberoff's Pacific Pictures Corp., granting him a controlling stake in the heirs' interest in the superhero character.

The documents at issue were unearthed during a theft investigation by the U.S. Attorney's office, and detailed Toberoff's interactions with the estates.

Magistrate Judge Ralph Zaresky rules that DC comics should have access to the documents last year, over Toberoff's objections that he had an agreement with the government to keep the documents under wraps.

Chief Judge Alex Kozinski and judges Diarmuid O'Scannlain and Norman Smith heard arguments from Toberoff's counsel, Richard Kendall of Kendall Brill Klieger, and DC Comics' attorney, Matthew Kline of O'Melveny & Myers.

Kozinski asked Kline why the documents were not protected under attorney-client privilege. The judge noted that even if an attorney states explicitly that he has a waiver from his client, that is not enough. "Where is the client's action?" he asked.

Kline argued that all the evidence showed that the clients had expressly waived the attorney-client privilege and that Toberoff had obtained their consent to release the documents.

But during his rebuttal, Kendall said that grand jury secrecy offered "complete protection" against disclosure. He added that he had asserted attorney-client privilege "every which way" and noted that "the entire crime was the theft of privileged documents."