UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

_____________________________________X
COBY RECHT,
Plaintiff, Docket: 08-CV-250-SLC
- against –

METRO GOLDWYN MAYER STUDIO, INC., DECLARATION OF P'

COBY RECHY IN
itself or on behalf of one of its subsidiaries, OPPOSITION TO
MOTION TO TRANSFER
Defendant.
_____________________________________X

COBY RECHT, declares as follows;

1. I am the Plaintiff in this case. I am making this affidavit based on first

hand knowledge of the facts and circumstances described herein.
2. I am making this affidavit in opposition to Defendant MGM's motion
to transfer the case to Los Angeles based on allegations of inconvenience of
records and witnesses.
3. This is a case of willful infringement in new media by Defendant of
copyrights in 13 songs, and the literary manuscript of the Motion Picture “The
Apple,” produced in 1979, and released in new media in 2004 by MGM.
4. I am asking the Court to respect my choice of jurisdiction. I am advised
that the Plaintiff's choice of forum should not be disturbed in the context of a
forum non conveniens motion; unless the Defendant shows significant and
extreme hardship or that my choice of forum was vexatious. Defendant did not
show these elements.
5. As a rule of thumb, "unless the balance is strongly in favor of the
defendant, the plaintiff's choice of forum should rarely be disturbed." In re
National Presto, 347 F.3d at 664, Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific R.R. v.
Igoe, 220 F.2d 299, 302 (7th Cir. 1955).
National and domiciliary treatment – Adversarial equation
6. Under (1) the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and
Artistic Works, Articles 5-6, (2) The Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of

1
Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) identified as Annex 1C of the Marrakesh
Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Articles 3-4 "national
Treatment" and "Most Favored Nation Treatment", and (3) the Israel-US
Agreement relating to Reciprocal Copyright Relations, Exchange of notes at
Washington May 4, 1950; 1 UST 645; TIAS 2121; 132 UNTS 189; I am
entitled to be treated as a national in the forum of my choice in order to protect
my rights. The forum of my choice is Madison, Wisconsin.
7. Since I am not domiciled anywhere else in the U.S., I am entitled to be
treated no different than a local Wisconsin musician.
8. Pursuant to the TRIPS Agreement, Art. 3, I am entitled to "treatment no
less favorable than that it [Forum State] accords to its own nationals with
regard to the protection of intellectual property", and pursuant to Art. 4 "With
regard to the protection of intellectual property, any advantage, favor, privilege
or immunity granted by a Member to the nationals of any other country shall be
accorded immediately and unconditionally to the nationals of all other
Members".
9. Thus, the advantage, favor, privilege or immunity provided to
Wisconsin musicians to access the Western District of Wisconsin, should also
be extended to me.
10. The Conventions use the term "national" but in a federal system that
should also mean resident of the State.
11. Therefore, the adversarial equation is between me as a local
domiciliary in the Western District of Wisconsin vis a vis the Defendant, an
international conglomerate susceptible of being sued almost anywhere in the
world where the Defendant is found. This Defendant is found in all 50 States
and at least in another 120 countries (e.g. India, Vietnam) where it owns or co-
owns MGM branded cable channels. All these potential venues are much more
inconvenient to MGM than Wisconsin.
12. Venue for claims raising copyright claims is governed by 28 U.S.C. §
1400(a). Such claims may be brought "in the district in which the defendant or
his agent resides or may be found." A defendant "may be found" in any

2
judicial district in which he is subject to personal jurisdiction. Milwaukee
Concrete Studios, Ltd. v. Fjeld Manufacturing Co., 8 Fed. 3d 441, 445-46
(7th Cir. 1993).

Other potential forums much more inconvenient for MGM – Israel - Delaware
13. I must add that this litigation had to be brought in the United States,
because the causes of action arise under the US Copyright law, since the failure
of MGM's copyright clearance process occurred in the United States, and the
DVD was released in the US. The DVD in question was released in NTSC
format. Israel is not an NTSC Country, and the DVD in question is not
distributed or available for sale in my home State.
14. However the movie was broadcasted in Israel at least once on
Christmas night 2007 on the local MGM channel. Therefore, I still have
unexpired causes of action to sue MGM for infringement under Israeli law for
the broadcasts containing infringing material that occurred in Israel.
15. Those broadcasts overseas are not necessarily covered under US law,
because of its intra-territorial application. If (and when) I sue MGM in Israel,
the doctrine of FNC would not be available, and therefore I fail to see how
MGM can say that it is inconvenienced by conducting a trial in Wisconsin,
when a similar trial can be conducted in Israel (on causes of action not covered
by the complaint), and the same alleged MGM witnesses would have had to
take Transatlantic flights, rather than domestic flights from California to
Wisconsin, which is relatively not such a far distance.
16. In fact, defendant is incorporated in Delaware. If alternatively I had
sued MGM in Delaware, the FNC doctrine would not be available to MGM,
since a corporation cannot transfer a case away from its State of incorporation.
17. Therefore, I fail to understand how MGM can come to a Wisconsin
Court and say that because some unidentified records or witnesses are in Los
Angeles, MGM is inconvenienced by the possibility of flying them from Los
Angles to Wisconsin, when alternatively this litigation could have started in
Delaware, where the doctrine of FNC would not be available, and same records

3
and witnesses would have to travel by much longer flights to Delaware in the
East Coast. (LAX-MSN =1,680 miles or 5½ hours flight, LAX-PHL
Philadelphia=2,390 miles +25 miles by train to Wilmington, at least 9-10 hours
away).
18. A check on expedia.com revealed that a roundtrip flight from LAX to
MSN on 14 day advance booking can be made for $305.
19. In some States and Circuits, the distance within the State or Circuit can
easily require a car ride of 5½ hours or more. For example, a car ride from the
San Diego Court to Sacramento Court can take 8 hours (511 miles), according
to mapquest.com. The cost of gas and tolls r/t can possibly match the airfare
from LAX to MSN.
20. I also note the difference between per diem costs. According to the US
General Services Administration (www.gsa.gov), the per diem rate in LA is
$182 and in Madison it is $143. For me, this consideration too would pose a
hardship tilting against a transfer of this case to California, when I am a
struggling musician, and every dollar counts.
21. See Insurance Company of North America v. Marina Salina Cruz,
649 F.2d 1266 (9th Cir. 1981) where the Ninth Circuit has recognized that
"modern means of communication and transportation have tended to diminish
the burden of defense of a lawsuit in a distant forum. See World-Wide
Volkswagen, supra, 444 U.S. at 292-93, 100 S.Ct. at 564; Hanson v. Denckla,
supra, 357 U.S. at 251, 78 S.Ct. at 1238; McGee v. International Life Ins.
Co., supra, 355 U.S. at 222-23, 78 S.Ct. at 200".
22. The technological advancement since 1981 has made it much cheaper,
easier, and comfortable to travel between States.

Wisconsin was a legitimate choice – expertise, congestion, speed

23. I chose to sue in Wisconsin for wholly legitimate reasons. In my
complaint, I cited the Court's expertise with intellectual property matters, as
opposed to Los Angeles which is not necessarily known for that. I also

4
considered speed, efficiency, and docket congestion issues based on articles
and blogs available on the net.
24. I also consulted with a Los Angeles attorney who advised me that
"there is no question but that courts are crowded here [LA]". He further
advised me to "go on the internet and search under time delays and LA
Courts."
25. Indeed, my current attorneys referred me to a "Fact Sheet" dated
August 2007 from the Judicial Council of California entitled "The California
Judicial Workload Assessment" which states that "drawing on the data
collected from a time study and follow up validation research, the NCSC
concluded that the California state trial courts needed over 350 new judicial
officers, a deficit of about 18%". Further research revealed that this deficit
causes a spillover of cases increasing congestion at the California federal
Courts as well.
26. See "Federal Judicial Caseload Statistics", Exhibit "A" at
http://www.uscourts.gov/caseload2007/contents.html. According to Table C-5
"Median Time Intervals From Filing to Disposition of Civil Cases". For the 12
months ending in March 2007 there were 488 disposed cases in WI, W with a
median time interval in months to disposition of 4.1 months. In CA, C there
were 8,636 cases with a median time interval of 7.8 months. Cases disposed by
trial took an average of 11.4 months in WI, W and 18.9 months in CA, C.
27. Thus, the proposed transferee Court is much more congested, and the
life of a case there is much longer, whereas the forum Court's performance was
the best the Country.
28. Defendant did not show how long it would take to try the case in LA,
or that it would be equal or better to the time delineations stated in Wisconsin's
"Standing Order Governing Preliminary Pretrial Conferences".
29. In addition, I am advised that Court rules in the proposed transferee
Court are much more complicated.
30. As the moving party, defendant bears the burden of showing that the
transferee forum is clearly more convenient. Coffey v. Van Dorn Iron Works,

5
796 F.2d 217, 219-20 (7th Cir. 1986). "When plaintiff and defendant are in
different states there is no choice of forum that will avoid imposing
inconvenience; and when the inconvenience of the alternative venues is
comparable there is no basis for a change of venue; the tie is awarded to the
plaintiff." In re National Presto Industries, Inc., 347 F.3d 662, 665 (7th Cir.
2003).

Extra hardship for me in Los Angeles

31. In addition, the local Federal Court rules in Los Angeles require
appointment of a local attorney. I am advised that the rules there are much
more complicated, motion dates must be obtained by calling the Court,
presence for oral argument mandatory, 3 sets of copies must be made
(Chambers, courtesy and filing), and other intricacies that make litigation there
costlier and slower.
32. I have tried hard to find a Los Angeles attorney, but could not find one.
The LA attorneys I spoke with required substantial retainers in dollars which I
could not afford. (See, my forma pauperis app).
33. Thus, a transfer to Los Angeles poses a risk that I will not be able to
enjoy legal representation.

Some examples of MGM's business in Wisconsin

34. Nowhere in its papers does MGM deny that it was initially amenable to
be served with process in Wisconsin. The Apple DVD is available for sale in
Wisconsin and this fact was not in dispute. The movie was broadcasted in
Wisconsin on Showtime, and MGM in general or together with its subsidiaries
derives substantial income from Wisconsin residents. Personal jurisdiction
over the defendant satisfies Wis. Stat. § 801.05 (2007) subdivision (1)(d). In
applying the test under sub. (1) (d), the court looks to the defendant's general
contacts with the forum state, not merely its contacts arising out of the specific
transaction at issue. See Jadair v. Van Lott, Inc., 512 F. Supp. 1141 (1981).

6
 35. I personally ordered the Apple movie DVD from Tower.com on June
24, 2008 for the price of $12.98 and had it shipped to an address in Wisconsin
(2701 University Avenue, Ste 2, Madison WI 53705. I can accept any
document at this address).
36. The DVD was shipped from Miami FL and arrived at the Madison, WI
address on July 1, 2008. Attached as Exhibit "B" is a scanned copy of the box
and the inside slip.
37. Although the sale was executed via Tower.com, I am sure that
Tower.com is paying MGM a cut from the sale, and thus MGM continues to
enjoy the benefits of commerce in Wisconsin from the very DVD subject
matter of the suit.
38. Defendant also operates an online store at www.mgmstore.com where
it sells various articles such as Rocky Balboa Boxer shorts, MGM tote bag,
Stragate Atlantis Tshirt or a Pink Panther figurine. The web sites states: "We
can only ship videos and DVDs to U.S. addresses". Other merchandise is sold
in the U.S. and internationally.
39. The television show Stargate Atlantis, belonging to MGM's repertoire,
for example, is broadcasted on WBUW in Wisconsin on Saturdays at 9:00 pm.
40. Another press release available on the internet with MGM's Roaring
Lion logo entitled "MGM celebrates the theatrical release of Feast of Love with
a feast of coffee", dated September 17, 2007, states that "free coffee is
available in North America to all patron's of "Local" coffee establishments on
Thursday September 20, 2007". One of the coffee shops participating in
promoting MGM's movie is the "Mocha, A Coffee Bistro" at 124 West
Wisconsin Ave., Milwaukee, WI.

MGM's lobbying activity in Wisconsin

41. In fact, contrary to MGM's allegations that it has nothing to do with
Wisconsin, research on the internet reveals that MGM is also involved in the
politics of Wisconsin. According to information available on
www.campaignmoney.com and www.usatoday.com/news/politicselection in

7
the 2004 election campaign, Metro Goldwyn Mayer Political Action
Committee contributed $3,500 to F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., a Republican
candidate for the House of Representatives from Wisconsin's 5th District.
42. Out of a total of $48,500 contributed to House and Senate candidates in
2004, MGM chose to spend $3,500 on a Wisconsin candidate. Why? This
amounts to 7.2% of MGM's Political Action Committee's total spending on
lobbying activities and political influence in Wisconsin alone.
43. I believe that if MGM can court Wisconsin politicians, it can be sued in
Wisconsin Courts as well.

Pledge of MGM Film Library in WI

44. One more example: On August 8, 2000, a UCC1 Financing Statement
was filed with the Wisconsin Dept. of Financial Institutions (Filing #01979361)
by MGM Home Entertainment Distribution Corp. in favor of Bank of America
with an 11 page attachment identified as "Schedule 1", Exhibit "C".
45. Therein it is revealed that MGM Home Entertainment Distribution
Corp was the "Debtor" and Metro Goldwyn Mayer Studios Inc. [the herein
Defendant] was defined as "Borrower". It refers to an underlying "Borrower
and Guarantor Security Agreement" dated October 15, 1997. The secured
pledge encompassed all accounts, contracts, copyrights, copyright licenses,
documents, film collateral, and other items. The definition of Copyrights,
Copyright Licenses and Film collateral is so engulfing to include "each film
and all collateral, allied, ancillary, subsidiary and merchandizing rights
therein…and all rights of every kind and every nature" of the films belonging
to Borrower and Debtor."
46. Apparently, the "Apple" film subject matter of this dispute was
included in the Defendant's pledge that was filed with Wisconsin's Dept. of
Financial Institutions.
47. If the Apple Film was good enough for Defendant to be pledged as
collateral filed in Wisconsin, it is good enough for MGM to litigate over the
ownership of rights therein in Wisconsin.

8
 48. In light of all the following examples, when the action was
commenced, the defendant was engaged in substantial and not isolated
activities within this state, whether such activities are wholly interstate,
intrastate, or otherwise.
49. Defendant purposefully established minimum contacts in the forum
State, within the meaning of Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462,
474, 85 L. Ed. 2d 528, 105 S. Ct. 2174 (1985).
50. Defendant purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting
business within Wisconsin. Its contacts were not "random," "fortuitous" or
"attenuated." See, Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 774, 79
L. Ed. 2d 790, 104 S. Ct. 1473 (1958).
Cindy Perez Wilson's Declaration – MGM history and mergers irrelevant
51. In Paragraph 5 of Cindy Wilford Perez' Declaration executed June 25,
2008, she states that MGM's home distribution is administered by a third party
and, she claims, that "accordingly MGM does not itself distribute the DVD in
Wisconsin". Is Ms. Wilford Perez saying that this "third Party" with no name
is unconnected to MGM, has no business with MGM and is distributing in
Wisconsin AGAINST THE WILL of MGM? If not, then that third party entity
with no name is an agent of MGM, appointed by MGM and serving the wishes
of MGM to MGM's benefit. To me, the entire statement in paragraph 5 of
Wilford Perez Declaration appears evasive, convoluted, and false.
52. MGM's papers discuss at length the alleged existence of records and
witnesses in Los Angeles. However, the discussion is made only in generalities
and it does not appear very candid. There is no explanation what types of
records MGM possesses, and how hard or inconvenient is it for a witness to
carry them. Is there a big volume of documents that require cargo shipping, or
just a small folder that is easily portable by a human being or a laptop?
53. Are the records relevant for MGM's defense? For example, records
regarding MGM's history and/or chain of title and/or prior mergers and
acquisitions are totally irrelevant to MGM's defenses as to what happened in
2004 when the DVD was released. MGM's logo appears on the DVD box

9
cover, and if it contains infringing content, then MGM is liable regardless of its
history or how it acquired the repertoire of Cannon Films. (Note that Wilford
Perez does not make the connection between Golan-Globus Productions Inc.,
the entity that signed the 1979 Agreement and Cannon Films).
54. Thus, Cindy Wilford Perez who made the declaration in support of the
motion to transfer, and who describes herself as a person with knowledge about
MGM's history and prior mergers, does not possess personal knowledge about
how MGM reached the decision to release the DVD without clearing the
copyrights with me in advance (especially when MGM can not come forward
with a signed assignment of the copyrights).
55. Moreover, MGM's papers completely evade discussion of records
pertaining to its copyright clearance process that occurred in 2004 before the
DVD's mass production. Where are those documents? Who are the potential
witnesses with respect to the copyrights clearance department? This is the crux
of the complaint, but MGM sheds no light on the copyright clearance process
of the DVD.

The Declaration of Jonathan Zavin and the Motion to Transfer - Witnesses

56. Counsel for Defendant states that there are many witnesses located in
California. In an attempt to paint a picture as if there are so many Californians
who are potential witnesses, Zavin lists names without even verifying their
current address in reputable sources or even analyzing if they would testify in
favor of MGM. I'll address them one by one.
57. Most of the witnesses named by Zavin, if not all, would offer nothing
more than parol evidence or minor anecdotal statements that do not remotely
touch on the core issues. Some will actually testify against MGM, for
example…my ex wife.
58. Zavin claims that Iris Recht lives in California and is necessary for
MGM's defense (Zavin Decl. ¶10). Iris is my ex wife and mother of our son.
She left California in or around 1992 and now lives in Ceasaria, Israel. I know
this for a fact. She will certainly testify against MGM. MGM has infringed on

10
her lyrics as well. It is odd that Zavin goes so far to embellish the list of
potential Californian witnesses by naming Iris, when she has appointed counsel
to make demands for compensation from MGM on this very film.
59. Zavin claims that Menachem Golan lives in California and is necessary
for MGM's defense (Zavin Decl. ¶3). Golan actually left the United States in
1991-92 and lives in Tel Aviv. I know this for a fact. He is 79 years old and I
saw him last week in Israel. He will not testify in favor of MGM. On the
contrary, he is considering suing MGM too.
60. Zavin claims that Yoram Globus lives in California and is necessary
for MGM's defense (Zavin Decl. ¶5). Yoram Globus left the United States in
1993-1994 and lives in Israel. I know this for a fact. I am not sure but I think
he is not allowed to return to the United States as he may be wanted by
authorities.
61. Zavin claims that Dani Dimbort lives in California and is necessary for
MGM's defense (Zavin Decl. ¶4). I am not sure if Dimbort lives in LA or Las
Vegas. However, he was merely the agent on behalf of Golan-Globus
Productions, Inc. who signed the 1979 Agreement. Since he is a native Israeli,
he speaks Hebrew. If called to testify, he will say that the original Hebrew
version of the Agreement says MIDA (=extent) and not MEDIA and thus
corroborate paragraphs 36-37 of the Complaint. This would not really serve
the interests of the defense, so I doubt that Zavin really intends to call him.
62. Zavin claims that Richard O'Connell and Babbie Green live in
California and are necessary for MGM's defense (Zavin Decl. ¶¶ 6-7). First, I
don't know who they are and what relevance they may have for MGM's
defense. Second, Zavin relies on the same "database search" that "was
performed at his direction". The same database yielded false addresses which
are more than 14 years out of date for Iris Recht, Menachem Golan and Yoram
Globus. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the "database" used at Zavin's
direction is up to date for Richard O'Connell and Babbie Green. Their
testimony may be insignificant.

11
 63. Zavin claims that Robert Hunka lives in California and is necessary for
MGM's defense (Zavin Decl. ¶8). First, I don't know who he is. Second, it is
claimed that he wrote something to Ascap on September 10, 1986. I don't
know why that is relevant when the original contract from 1979 nominated the
French SACEM society to collect publishing royalties. Third, Zavin relies on
the same "database search" that "was performed at his direction". The same
database yielded false addresses which are more than 14 years out of date for
Iris Recht, Menachem Golan and Yoram Globus. Therefore, it is highly
unlikely that the "database" used at Zavin's direction is up to date for Robert
Hunka. If he wrote something to Ascap in 1986, his testimony is completely
irrelevant.
64. Zavin claims that George Clinton lives in California and is necessary
for MGM's defense (Zavin Decl. ¶9). Clinton may be living in California. I
doubt that he will be useful for MGM's defense, as Clinton is still collecting
publishing royalties on his work, despite his "work for hire" status.
65. I am not so sure that all these witnesses named by Zavin (some of
whom will definitely testify against MGM: Iris Recht and Menachem Golan)
will actually have to testify, as this case may be disposed of by way of
summary judgment. There is a contract from 1979, and as a matter of law it
can be read or interpreted without testimony dehors the document itself. Either
the 1979 contract allowed new media exploitation in 2004, or it didn't.
66. If Defendant could show a signed assignment of copyrights, then
Defendant would not need any of these witnesses.
67. If defendant's defense relies on parole evidence witnesses, such that
you don't know what they will say, then how can it justify taking a decision not
to clear the copyrights in new media in 2004, with such uncertainties looming
over this decision?
68. As for me, I only intended to testify solo. However, if Menachem
Golan and Iris Recht will agree to travel from Israel, they may testify as well.

12
Indiana witnesses
69. Zavin does not name any witnesses who participated in the copyright
clearance process in 2004. If anything, they are the real witnesses who may
shed light as to how MGM determined that it is authorized to exploit my
copyrighted music without clearing it with me in advance.
70. Zavin also does not reveal the names of witnesses from the factory that
replicated the DVD. Upon information and belief, the Apple DVD was
replicated by Cinram, Inc. which is located in Richmond, Indiana.
71. Before replicating any disc, Cinram requires the person making the
order to submit original releases from all those whose copyrights are involved,
the entire documentation regarding copyright clearance, and to fill in forms
listing all authors and right holders involved explaining the chain of rights
(www.cinram.com - click on "Antipiracy Compliance Program" on left of the
page). Cinram also states that it conducts its own copyright clearance and
review.
72. Indiana is in the 7th Circuit and is much closer to Wisconsin than
California. It is only 329 miles from Madison, WI or 249 miles to Kenosha.
(Compare this with Zavin's statement that "there is not a document or a
potential witness in this case within a thousand miles of Wisconsin" (Motion,
P.2).

Additional responses in opposition

73. As to the allegations that there are records pertaining to the revenues
from the film located in California, I state that these records should have been
revealed before the litigation, and not at trial. Since I am entitled to a 5% share
from the original media exploitation, I should have been receiving reports
about the revenues a long time ago. Nobody ever reported to me what were the
production costs, what were the revenues, and if I ever got close to receiving
some payment.
74. It is rather hypocritical to first refuse to disclose if and what the
revenues are, and then use the records as an excuse to force me to go to LA.

13
 75. I object to the allegations that events that occurred in 1979, such as my
travel together with Iris to LA in 1979, or the location of Cannon in LA in 1979
or that work such as film editing was done in LA in 1979, have any probative
value today in considering the balance of conveniences.
76. I also object to the speculation that it would be easier for me to travel to
LA rather than Wisconsin (Motion, P.10) . It would not be convenient for me
to litigate in LA.
77. I do not understand why Defendant needs "compulsive process" to
compel witnesses to testify in its defense (Motion, P. 13). Practically, if MGM
needs to rely on witnesses who must be compelled to come to Court, then its
defense appears to be very weak and it is unlikely that Defendant indeed
wishes to compel witnesses to testify and risk a chance of surprising or
unfavorable testimony from compelled witnesses.
78. I object to the allegation that "in the instant action it would be highly
disruptive for MGM's corporate witnesses to travel from California", (Motion,
P.12). First, this is an unsworn statement. Second, a day of testimony is hardly
disruptive. (Taking sick leave is more disruptive). Third, Defendant should
have prepared itself in advance for the possibility of being sued wherever its
infringements are sold or publicly performed. Fourth, short testimonies of
minor witnesses can be done by videoconference. Fifth, I believe that MGM's
corporate employees would willingly travel to the other side the globe in search
of new avenues to exploit business, and in this case Defendant took a
calculated risk that one day it may have to answer for its actions (or omissions)
wherever there is an infringement.
79. I object to the insinuation that I "acknowledged that MGM was the
owner of the copyright and master recording of coming, one of the Songs"
(Motion, P.8). I never acknowledged such a thing. In 2001 I wanted to mix the
song, and was looking for the whereabouts of the recording. I didn't even
know if I wrote to the right entity.
80. I also object to the speculation that "in light of Judge Shabaz's medical
leave of absence from Court it is unlikely that this Court would be able to

14
adjudicate this matter more quickly than the central District of California"
(Motion, P.13). First, this is pure speculation. Second, it was already
addressed in the Hon. Judge Crabb's Decision dated June 12, 2008 in the
opening paragraph. Third, Defendant did not bring any data about the lifespan
of copyright cases in the Central District of California, whereas the anticipated
lifespan of this case is clearly known pursuant to this Court's "Standing Order
Governing Preliminary Pretrial Conferences", which states "Trial shall be held
six to eight months after preliminary pretrial conference".
81. As for the interest of the forum state of Wisconsin, I believe it is in the
interest of Wisconsin to prevent sales of materials such as DVDs containing
infringing content in Wisconsin, and to prevent broadcasts of same on
Wisconsin's channels of mass communication. It is also in line with
international conventions which guarantee no less favorable treatment to
plaintiffs like me.
82. Transfer of this case to another venue is not in the interest of justice in
light of my choice of forum.

In conclusion
83. As the moving party, defendant bears the burden of showing that the
transferee forum is clearly more convenient. Coffey v. Van Dorn Iron Works,
796 F.2d 217, 219-20 (7th Cir. 1986).
84. I chose to sue in Wisconsin for legitimate reasons. I believe under
copyright treaties I am entitled to treatment as a domiciliary in Wisconsin, or at
least no different treatment than that of a Wisconsin Plaintiff. MGM does
business in Wisconsin including a recent sale of the infringing DVD of the
Apple. A pledge of MGM's film library was filed in Wisconsin in favor of
Bank of America. MGM seeks political influence from Wisconsin politicians.
MGM could have been sued in Delaware and if that happened, the entire
inconvenience theory would have collapsed. MGM can still be sued in Israel
for broadcasts on MGM-Israel channel, which would force the same witnesses
and records to fly to Israel. MGM did not identify witnesses or records

15
pertaining to the copyright clearance that occurred in 2004 situated in Indiana.
The witnesses which MGM claims it needs for its defense and resides in
California do not actually reside in California. Menachem Golan and Iris
Yotvat live in Israel for more than 14 years, and if called would testify against
MGM. Yoram Globus also lives in Israel for more than 14 years. The claim
that other witnesses reside in California is based on a database that is 14 years
old and is unreliable. The need for testimony from the named witnesses is not
clear, given that there is a contract that does not spell out an assignment, does
not recognize new media and there is no assignment in writing. It is likely that
the case will be disposed of by summary judgment.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for an order dismissing the motion to
transfer.

Dated: Tel Aviv Israel

July 7, 2008

Coby Recht, Plaintiff Pro Se

Certificate of Service
I Limor Bioh, a secretary at Moshe Zingel's Office Certify that I served this
document today by fax and email to:
Jonathan Zavin, Esq., Loeb & Loeb, LLP, 345 Park Avenue, New York, NY
10154, Tel. 212 407 4165, Fax 212 658 9105, Email: jzavin@loeb.com
July 7, 2008

16