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)

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
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-