Boxoffice (Apr-Jun 1939)

GOVT MUST NAME WITNESSES, COURT HOLDS; MAJORS STRIKE FOR DETAILED PARTICULARS Ask Time, Place, Names UA Distribution Methods Are To Be Specified in rr>l . » n t * d. j. charges Hit in Government Action New York — Major distributors won an important point this week in the government’s all-industry suit when Federal Judge William O. Bondy handed down an order directing the department of justice to furnish names of witnesses. The defendants also moved for a more comprehensive bill of particulars, holding the government’s information in the first bill was “incomplete, vague, uncertain, inadequate, ambiguous, equivocal, uninformative” and a more definite statement with respect to each defendant charged with having committed the alleged acts should be forthcoming. Distributors are not satisfied with the government’s answer to a specific period by the phrase “for many years past.” They ask for time, place and names in each specific instance when an act is charged. Likewise, certain terms referred to in the bill are asked to be explained in detail. In each instance cited, the defendants declare the government “fails to comply with the decision of this court.” A hearing on the petition will be held Friday at 10:30 before Judge Bondy. Distributors ask 60 days to answer from the time after service. Reminds of Time Limit In handing down his decision that the government must supply names of witnesses, in accordance with paragraph 8, Judge Bondy stated: “The department of justice is directed to furnish at the present time particulars' required in paragraph 8 of the consolidated motion with respect to all instances referred to in paragraph 188 of the petition, except that in cases where the petitioner has been requested not to disclose such information prior to trial of action by individuals whose testimony is relied upon to establish the allegation of paragraph 188 of the petition and who now have business relations with any of the defendants. The petitioner need not furnish these particulars at the present time, but must do so in less than 30 days before trial of action. In this way, fear of retaliation and reprisal expressed by attorneys for the petitioner will be allayed and defendants will have an opportunity to prepare for trial. The court intimates no opinion, however, that any such fear of retaliation is well founded. In all other respects, the motion is denied.” Included in the latest motion by distributors is a request for particulars furnished either to Columbia or UA, which are acting independently from the other major companies. Columbia, so far, has had no information provided it separately from the government. John T. Cahill of the department of justice on Thursday submitted a bill of particulars, similar in all respects to the other six companies, for UA. Albert C. Bickford of Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett, Paramount counsel, filed the motion for further particulars and named with him attorneys for 20th-Fox, RKO, M-G-M, Chase National Bank, Warners, Universal and Courtland Smith. He asks for the following: “1 — For an order in the alternative in accordance with provisions of rule 12 (e) of the Rules of Civil Procedure striking the petition heretofore filed herein by the petitioner on July 20, 1938, for failure of the petitioner to comply with said decision; or in the alternative striking the allegations of the petition referred to in paragraph ‘I’ of the annexed motion with respect to which the particulars furnished by the petitioner are inadequate and do not comply with the decision. “2 — For an order directing the petitioner to furnish particulars with respect to certain matters alleged in the petition which are referred to in paragraph Til’ of the annexed motion, all of which this court has directed the petitioner to furnish either to Columbia or other ‘Columbia defendants’ or to UA or other ‘UA defendants’ by decisions filed herein on March 7, 1939, but which have not heretofore been requested by the moving defendants. “Said items referred to in paragraph ‘I’ of the annexed motion relate mainly to the vague and indefinite allegations in the petition dealing with the alleged conspiracies and combinations between the defendants for the purpose of monopolizing the production and exhibition of motion pictures. The purpose of the motion heretofore filed herein on October 26, 1938, (Continued on page 20) Justice Department Gets New Funds Washington— Virtually assuring the department of justice additional financial support in its drive against monopolies, the House Appropriations Committee has increased the anti-trust funds for the coming fiscal year by $520,000 to $1,300,000. No further moves of importance against the film industry are anticipated until the new money is forthcoming July 1 when the federal fiscal year starts. New York — Coercive selling, overbuying, clearance and zoning and the method of distribution are attacked by the government in its bill of particulars to UA filed late in the week. Although the bill states “United Artists has engaged in all of the unfair trade practices in the bill of complaint, paragraph 214,” vague information is furnished as to dates, names and places. In discussing coercive selling, the particulars state: “In order to compel independent exhibitors to pay high film rentals for its product or to purchase its films in situations where independent exhibitors do not purchase such films, or to purchase a greater number of films in situations where independent exhibitors already purchased some of its films, each defendant engages and has engaged in one or more of the following coercive methods: threatening to build a competing theatre, threatening to deprive an independent exhibitor of product, purchasing a theatre site or sites in the neighborhood of the independent exhibitor, with the suggestion conveyed to the independent exhibitor either directly or through third parties that the defendant in question intends to build and operate a theatre or theatres on such sites in opposition to the independent exhibitor; threatening to purchase an equity or interest in the independent theatre for the purpose of gaining control through reorganization or otherwise; or threatening to impose upon the independent exhibitor unreasonable clearance.” In reference to UA’s alleged engaging in unfair trade practices, time, places and parties are unknown to the petitioner. The same holds for whether any collusive agreements were oral or in writing. Arbitrary designation of preferred playing time is explained by the government as meaning “that unless an independent exhibitor agrees to exhibit features on dates arbitrarily designated by the distributor, the distributor will refuse to license to said exhibitor the feature pictures on which the playing dates have been so designated, and, in some cases, other of its pictures.” On clearance and zoning, the particulars state: “These are arbitrary and unreasonable” because “(1) the territorial areas over which protection has been granted have been too wide; and (2) the periods of time established between the protected run or runs and the run or runs subsequent to it have been too long.” Method of distribution “refers to the practice of licensing product to exhibitors without regard to the amount of product (Continued on page 20) BOXOFFICE :: May 20, 1939 E 19