Rupa Marya v. Warner Chappell Music Inc

Filing 101

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Compel (i) DEFENDANTS TO PRODUCE WITHHELD DOCUMENTS; OR (ii) RELIEF FROM DISCOVERY CUTOFF TO CONDUCT COURT REVIEW IN CAMERA OF WITHHELD DOCUMENTS filed by plaintiffs Good Morning to You Productions Corp, Majar Productions LLC, Rupa Marya, Robert Siegel. Motion set for hearing on 6/25/2014 at 09:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Michael R. Wilner. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum Local Rule 37-2 Joint Stipulation, # 2 Exhibit A to Joint Stipulation, # 3 Exhibit B to Joint Stipulation, # 4 Declaration of Betsy C. Manifold in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion, # 5 Declaration of Kelly M. Klaus in Support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion, # 6 Exhibit A to Declaration of Kelly M. Klaus, # 7 Declaration of Jeremy Blietz in Support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion, # 8 Proposed Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion)(Manifold, Betsy)

1 FRANCIS M. GREGOREK (144785)
[e-mail]
2 BETSY C. MANIFOLD (182450)
[e-mail]
3 RACHELE R. RICKERT (190634)
[e-mail]
4 MARISA C. LIVESAY (223247)
[e-mail]
5 WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
6 750 B Street, Suite 2770
San Diego, CA 92101
7 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 619/234-4599
8
9 Interim Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs and the [Proposed] Class
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA -

12

WESTERN DIVISION
GOOD MORNING TO YOU
) Lead Case No. CV 13-04460-GHK (MRWx)
PRODUCTIONS CORP., et al.,
)
) [PROPOSED] ORDER COMPELLING
Plaintiffs,
) DEFENDANTS TO PRODUCE
) WITHHELD DOCUMENTS TO
v.
) PLAINTIFFS BY JUNE 27, 2014, OR IN
) THE ALTERNATIVE, EXTENDING
WARNER/CHAPPELL MUSIC, ) DISCOVERY CUTOFF TO PERMIT
INC., et al.,
) THE COURT TO CONDUCT AN IN
) CAMERA INSPECTION/REVIEW OF
Defendants.
) THE DISPUTED DOCUMENTS
)
) Date:
June 25, 2014
) Time:
9:30 am
) Room:
H-9th Floor
Mag. Michael R. Wilner
) Judge:
) Disc. Cutoff:
June 27, 2014
N/A
) Pretrial Conf.:
) Trial Date:
N/A
) L/D File Jt. MSJ: Nov. 14, 2014
)

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

HAVING FOUND GOOD CAUSE APPEARING in Plaintiffs’, Good

2 Morning To You Productions Corp., Robert Siegel, Rupa Marya, and Majar
3 Productions, LLC (“Plaintiffs”), Notice of Motion, Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’,
4 Warner/Chappell Music, Inc. and Summy-Birchard, Inc. (“Defendants”), Local Rule
5 37-2 Joint Stipulation Regarding Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Order: (i) Compelling
6 Defendants to Produce Documents Identified in Privilege Log, or (ii) Extending
7 Discovery Cutoff Deadline to Permit the Court to Conduct In Camera
8 Inspection/Review of the Documents, the declarations in support thereof, all written
9 and oral evidence, supplemental memoranda of law, the operative pleadings, and
10 arguments of counsel presented at the hearing conducted on June 25, 2014, at 9:30
11 a.m. by the Honorable Michael R. Wilner in department H-9th Floor of the above12 entitled court, the Courts makes the following findings:
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
13
14

1.

Defendants were properly served with Plaintiffs’ First Set of Requests

15

for Production of Documents (the “Document Requests”) on February

16

12, 2014, which contained only twelve separate requests;

17

2.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(b)(2)(A) requires that a party to

18

whom

19

information, or tangible things is directed, respond in writing within

20

30 days of being served; thus, Defendants responses were originally

21

due on or before March 12, 2014;

22

3.

a request to produce documents, electronically stored

Rule 34(a)(1) requires that a party produce or make available for

23

inspection all information that is within the “party’s possession,

24

custody, or control”;

25

4.

After requesting, and receiving, an extension of time comply with the

26

requirements of Rule 34, Defendants served their written Objections

27

and Responses to Plaintiffs’ Document Requests (the “Objections”)

28

-1-

1

on March 27, 2014, but did not produce any responsive documents at

2

that time;

3

5.

On April 11, 2014, approximately 60 days after the date Plaintiffs

4

personally served their Document Requests, Defendants produced

5

1104 pages of responsive documents to Plaintiffs, bearing bates

6

numbers WC000001-1103 (the “April 11 Production”);

7

6.

Defendants’ April 11 Production failed to include any redacted

8

documents or the required privilege log of the documents they were

9

withholding on the basis of any claim of protection under the

10
11

attorney-client privilege or the attorney work product doctrine;
7.

Despite promising to deliver a privilege log sooner, Defendants

12

waited until May 9, 2014, another 30 days, to supplement their

13

original production of documents with approximately 800 additional

14

pages of documents which included certain redacted documents and

15

contemporaneously produced a redaction log and 42-page privilege

16

log, which vaguely described 157 documents that Defendants asserted

17

as privileged communications and thus not discoverable;

18

8.

Plaintiffs did not receive Defendants’ supplemental production of

19

documents until May 13, 2014, but in the interim, began their review

20

of the items in Defendants’ redaction and privilege logs;

21

9.

On May 12, 13, and 14, 2014, Plaintiffs’ counsel

wrote to

22

Defendants’ counsel asserting that given the unjustifiable delay

23

between the service of Defendants’ Objections on March 27, 2014,

24

and the service of their privilege log on May 9, 2014, effectively

25

waived any and all claims of privilege asserted by Defendants

26

regarding the withheld documents;

27
28

-2-

1

10.

Defendants’ Objections to Plaintiffs’ Document Requests are

2

incomplete and, therefore, constitute a failure to respond under Rule

3

37(a)(4);

4

11.

In addition, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs that Defendants’

5

descriptions of the documents withheld as privileged communications

6

are inadequate, overly vague, and provide virtually no information

7

that is required for a party, let alone the Court, to properly assess their

8

claims of privilege especially given that a great number of these

9

documents appear to have been authored, addressed, or provided to a

10

numerous third-parties.
ORDER

11
12

THEREFORE, based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

13

Law, Plaintiffs’ Motion (Dkt.

14

without prejudice, as follows:

15

1.

) is hereby GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part

Having failed to provide a timely and complete privilege log,

16

Defendants shall produce unredacted copies of all documents

17

identified on the Privilege Log within three (3) days from the date of

18

the Order; or in the alternative

19

2.

Defendants are ORDERED to provide this Court with all 157

20

withheld documents for an in camera inspection within two days of

21

entry of this Order;

22

3.

Discovery cutoff is hereby extended as to this limited discovery

23

dispute until the Court completes its review of Defendants’ documents

24

and makes a further ruling on the issue; and

25

4.

The Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiffs’ Motion to the

26

extent it seeks an order declaring that Defendants’ have waived any

27

claims of privilege by their dilatory conduct in asserting same, but

28

-3-

1

reserves the right modify this decision after completion of the in

2

camera review.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

Dated:

7

HON. MICHAEL R. WILNER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

WARNER/CHAPPELL:20878v2

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-4-

COURT