Brave New Films 501 (C)(4) v. Weiner et al

Filing 96

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S DISCOVERY REQUEST WITHOUT PREJUDICE [Docket No. 94] (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/31/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BRAVE NEW FILMS 501(C)(4), v. Plaintiff, No. C 08-04703 SI ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S DISCOVERY REQUEST WITHOUT PREJUDICE [Docket No. 94] IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MICHAEL WEINER a/k/a MICHAEL SAVAGE, and ORIGINAL TALK RADIO NETWORK, INC., Defendants. / Now before the Court is plaintiff's request for the Court's intervention in a discovery dispute. Plaintiff seeks an order compelling defendants to (1) provide supplemental responses to plaintiff's interrogatories and requests for admissions, (2) produce documents responsive to plaintiff's request for production, and (3) produce detailed privilege logs for withheld or redacted documents that defendants claim are privileged. Defendants represent that after plaintiff filed its letter brief, defendants produced supplemental documents and detailed privilege logs. If defendants' representations are correct, it appears that plaintiff's request is now moot. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion is DENIED without prejudice to reconsideration should plaintiff find that defendants' production is unsatisfactory. As guidance to the parties, the Court notes that each of the categories of inquiry described by plaintiff in its letter brief appears to be relevant to plaintiff's claims. Those subjects are: (1) agreements and licenses between Savage and OTRN, (2) communications between Savage and OTRN concerning intellectual property rights, (3) information about the relationship between Savage and OTRN, (4) information about the copyright ownership of The Michael Savage Show, (5) information about OTRN or Savage's review of plaintiff's video, (6) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 information about the September 29 takedown letter. Going forward, should either party seek the Court's intervention in a discovery dispute, it will aid the Court if the parties attach the relevant discovery requests and responses to their letter briefs. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 31, 2009 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _______ SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge 2