James v. UMG Recordings, Inc.

Filing 147

DISCOVERY ORDER re 146 Letter Brief Joint Letter to Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James re Discovery Dispute

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

Northern District of California

8
9
10

RICK JAMES, by and through THE JAMES
AMBROSE JOHNSON, JR., 1999 TRUST, his
successor in interest, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,

11

No. C 11-1613 SI (MEJ)
ORDER REGARDING
DISCOVERY DISPUTE LETTER
(DKT. NO. 146)

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Plaintiff,
12
13

v.
UMG RECORDINGS, INC., a Delaware
corporation,

14
15

Defendant.
_____________________________________/

16
17

Before the Court is the parties’ supplemental joint letter pursuant to the Court’s November 29,

18 2012 Discovery Order. Jt. Ltr., Dkt. No. 146. On November 29, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to
19 respond to UMGR’s Interrogatory No. 9. Discovery Order, Dkt. No. 138. This Interrogatory asks
20 Plaintiffs to state whether each of UMGR’s agreements with music download providers, such as
21 iTunes, require the provider to compensate UMGR for downloads on a (1) flat rate or flat fee basis,
22 (2) cent rate basis, (3) royalty rate basis, or (4) some other basis. Jt. Ltr. at 1. In its Order, the Court
23 noted that “requiring Plaintiffs to respond to this interrogatory for 436 agreements is a burdensome
24 task,” and therefore instructed the parties that Plaintiffs could respond only as to “a reasonable
25 number” of these 436 agreements “that can be used as a representative sample for this discovery
26 response and others.” Order at 3. The Court instructed the parties to meet and confer
27 on this “reasonable number,” and file a second joint letter if they could not agree. Id. As seems to
28 have become a pattern in this case, the parties could not reach an agreement and have now submitted

1 the present joint letter. Upon review of the parties’ positions, the Court ORDERS Plaintiffs to
2 provide 40 agreements selected at random. Prior to providing the agreements, the parties shall meet
3 and confer to determine the best manner by which to select the 40 agreements. Both parties should
4 be mindful that the agreements are intended to provide a representative sample and not be hand5 picked samples showing only the best and worst examples. If the parties are unable to agree on the
6 manner of selection, they shall file another joint letter.
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9 Dated: January 24, 2013
_______________________________
Maria-Elena James
United States Magistrate Judge

10

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2