Arista Records LLC et al v. Lime Wire LLC et al
OPINION AND ORDER. #99675 The November 2 Order is AFFIRMED, with the exception that the Court holds in abeyance ruling on Orders 2-4 and 7, as set forth above. Discovery and briefing shall proceed, as consistent with this Order, at the direction of Judge Freeman. (Signed by Judge Kimba M. Wood on 11/18/10) (djc) Modified on 11/22/2010 (djc). Modified on 11/23/2010 (ajc).
Case 1:06-cv-05936-KMW -DCF Document 363
-DCF Arista Records LLC et al v. Lime Wire LLC et al
Filed 11/19/10 Page 1 of 11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ARISTA RECORDS LLC; ATLANTIC RECORDING CORPORATION; ARISTA MUSIC, fkaBMG MUSIC; CAPITOL RECORDS, INC; ELEKTRA ENTERTAINMENT GROUP INC; INTERSCOPE RECORDS; LAFACE RECORDS LLC; MOTOWN RECORD COMPANY, L.P.; PRIORITY RECORDS LLC; SONY MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT, fka SONY BMG MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT; UMG RECORDINGS, INC; VIRGIN RECORDS AMERICA, INC.; and WARNER BROS. RECORDS INC.,
ELECI'RONICALLYFILED DOC #: - - - - f - - - - . . , ' DATE FILED: LI / 1 9 /10
06 CV 5936 (KMW) OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiffs, -againstLIME GROUP LLC; LIME WIRE LLC; MARK GORTON; GREG BILDSON; and MJ.G. LIME WIRE FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Defendants.
KIMBA M. WOOD, U.S.DJ.:
Introduction On May 11,2010, this Court granted summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs on their
claims against Defendants Lime Wire LLC ("L W"), Lime Group LLC ("Lime Group"), and Mark Gorton (collectively, "Defendants") for secondary copyright infringement. The Court found that Defendants induced users of the Lime Wire file-sharing program ("Lime Wire") to infringe Plaintiffs' copyrights. In the Court's Opinion and Order (as amended on May 25,2010), the Court detailed this case's procedural and factual background (Dkt. No. 223), familiarity with which is assumed. The litigation is now in the damages phase. The instant dispute concerns the scope of damage-related discovery to which Defendants are entitled. Plaintiffs have filed an objection to
Case 1:06-cv-05936-KMW -DCF Document 363
Filed 11/19/10 Page 2 of 11
Magistrate Judge Freeman's Order of November 2,2010 (Dkt. No. 339) (hereinafter, the "November 2 Order"). Magistrate Judge Freeman issued the November 2 Order issued after a lengthy hearing held on November 1, 201 O. The November 2 Order granted, in part, Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration of Magistrate Judge Freeman's Order of October 15,2010 (Dkt. No. 329) (hereinafter, the "October 15 Order"). The October 15 Order ordered Plaintiffs to supplement its prior productions of certain categories of material, and ordered production of further materials related to damages. Specifically, Plaintiffs object to the following provisions of the November 2 Order: 1. That Plaintiffs produce all communications, relating to licensing, between Defendants and the 15 third-party licensees recently subpoenaed by Defendants, except for draft license agreements, from the last point in time discovery was collected; 2. That Plaintiffs produce all communications with other licensees referring or relating to LimeWire; 3. That the parties meet and confer regarding the parameters of an appropriate search for Plaintiffs' communications with their potential (as opposed to actual) licensees; 4. That Plaintiffs search for and produce internal emails regarding LimeWire contained in the email accounts of those employees of Plaintiffs who have been primarily responsible for negotiating licensing agreements with the 15 third-party licensees recently subpoenaed by Defendants; 5. With respect to recordings that were issued after 1972, as to which Plaintiffs are seeking statutory damages, that the parties submit supplemental briefing setting forth legal authority for their respective positions as to whether information regarding Plaintiffs' profits (as opposed to gross revenue) is relevant to statutory copyright damages; 6. With respect to recordings that were issued before 1972, as to which Plaintiffs are seeking common-law actual damages, that Plaintiffs produce documents and/or information sufficient to show the royalties paid by Plaintiffs in connection with those recordings; 7. To the extent Plaintiffs have gathered information regarding specific instances of the recordings at issue in this case being downloaded via th