James v. UMG Recordings, Inc.

Filing 147

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

Download PDF
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

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?