Rupa Marya v. Warner Chappell Music Inc

Filing 116

EX PARTE APPLICATION for Leave to Have Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Heard After the Discovery Cutoff Date filed by plaintiffs Good Morning to You Productions Corp, Majar Productions LLC, Rupa Marya, Robert Siegel. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Betsy C. Manifold in Support of Ex Parte Application, # 2 Exhibit 1 [Redacted] Discovery Motion, # 3 Proposed Order)(Manifold, Betsy)

Download PDF
1 FRANCIS M. GREGOREK (144785) 2 BETSY C. MANIFOLD (182450) 3 RACHELE R. RICKERT (190634) 4 MARISA C. LIVESAY (223247) 5 WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 6 750 B Street, Suite 2770 San Diego, CA 92101 7 Telephone: 619/239-4599 Facsimile: 619/234-4599 8 9 Interim Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs and the [Proposed] Class UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION 10 11 12 13 14 GOOD MORNING TO YOU PRODUCTIONS CORP., et al., Plaintiffs, 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v. WARNER/CHAPPELL MUSIC, INC., et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Lead Case No. CV 13-04460-GHK (MRWx) [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION TO HAVE MOTION TO COMPEL HEARD AFTER DISCOVERY CUT-OFF Judge: Hon. George H. King, Chief Judge Courtroom: 650 Fact Discovery Cutoff: July 11, 2014 Expert Reports: July 25, 2014 Rebuttal Expert Reports: August 25, 2014 Expert Discovery Cutoff: Sept. 26, 2014 L/D File Jt. MSJ: November 14, 2014 Pretrial Conference: N/A Trial: N/A 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”), ex parte application for an extension of the current 4 fact discovery cut-off deadline of July 11, 2014 in order to permit Plaintiffs’ 5 motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(B) for an order: (i) overruling the claim of 6 privilege by defendants Warner/Chappell Music, Inc. and Summy-Birchard, Inc. 7 (“Defendants”), to certain documents produced by non-party American Society of 8 Composers, Authors and Publishers (“ASCAP”), or, in the alternative, permitting a 9 Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) deposition to determine the factual basis for the claimed 10 privilege to be fully briefed and heard by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Wilner 11 (“the Motion”). The Court makes the following findings: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 12 13 1. (Dkt. 92); 14 15 The Court initially set the fact discovery deadline for June 27, 2014. 2. On June 9, 2014, the fact discovery deadline was extended by 16 Magistrate Judge Wilner, in connection with this Court, and at the 17 request of both parties, to July 11, 2014 in order to successfully 18 resolve an outstanding discovery dispute relating to Defendants’ 19 privilege log; 20 3. efforts to complete discovery prior to July 11, 2014; 21 22 Plaintiffs were diligent in their discovery and have made substantial 4. Plaintiffs served a document subpoena on ASCAP on March 28, 23 2014; and the parties received the ASCAP Documents on May 9, 24 2014. On May 22, 2014, for the first time, ASCAP advised Plaintiffs 25 that Defendants claimed certain of the ASCAP Documents were 26 privileged and that counsel for the Defendants would be contacting 27 Plaintiffs directly; 28 5. As required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(B), copies of the disputed ASCAP Documents were sequestered by Plaintiffs’ counsel and will -1- 1 be submitted to the Magistrate Judge under seal for a determination 2 of Defendants’ claim of privilege; 3 6. On May 22, 2014, Plaintiffs promptly noticed the deposition of 4 Defendants pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) for the corporation’s 5 testimony about the extent of ASCAP’s interest (if any) in the Song 6 and the royalties it collects for public performances of the Song and 7 whether 8 intentionally. On May 27, 2014, Defendants objected to Fed. R. Civ. 9 P. 30(b)(6) deposition and declined to produce a witness; 10 7. ASCAP produced the documents knowingly and Plaintiffs also subpoenaed ASCAP under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 and 11 30(b)(6) for the deposition of a representative of ASCAP most 12 knowledgeable about the scope or validity of any copyright to Song 13 and other related issues but ASCAP moved to quash the subpoena. 14 ASCAP and Plaintiffs then resolved the dispute and ASCAP 15 withdrew its motion to quash; 16 8. ASCAP’s deposition will take place in New York on July 11, 2014; 17 9. Plaintiffs seek an extension of the discovery deadline to resolve this 18 remaining discovery dispute relating to Defendants’ privilege claims 19 as to certain ASCAP Documents; 20 10. The pre-filing conference of counsel has already occurred and 21 Plaintiffs, prior to the filing of this ex parte application, provided 22 Defendants’ counsel with Plaintiffs’ portion of the Local Rule 37-2.2 23 Joint Stipulation and noticed the Motion for July 30, 2014, the first 24 available date under the Local Rules; 25 11. Absent this relief, under Local Rule 37-2, the Joint Stipulation and 26 Supplemental Memorandum process cannot be fully completed and 27 the motion heard prior to the discovery cut-off; and 28 -2- 1 12. 2 Plaintiffs meet the requirements both for ex parte relief and for the underlying request to permit its motion to be heard after the cutoff. 3 ORDER 4 5 6 7 THEREFORE, based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application is hereby GRANTED, as follows: 1. Plaintiffs acted diligently in serving its discovery requests and deposition 8 notices, meeting and conferring with Defendants and ASCAP, and filing 9 its motion to compel. 10 2. There is no prejudice to Defendants in having this motion heard now. 11 The information sought is very limited in scope, and has already been 12 produced by ASCAP. 13 3. Plaintiffs are not at fault in the need for this ex parte relief and good 14 cause exists for an extension of the discovery cut-off deadline for this 15 limited purpose. 16 4. Discovery cut-off is hereby extended as to this limited discovery 17 dispute until the parties have completed the scheduled briefing and the 18 Magistrate Judge completes its review of Defendants’ documents and 19 makes a ruling on the issues raised. 20 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 23 _____________________________________ HON. GEORGE H. KING, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 WARNER/CHAPPELL:20975.ORDER 28 -3-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?