James v. UMG Recordings, Inc.

Filing 148

ORDER RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DATED NOVEMBER 6, 2012 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 2/6/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

RICK JAMES, et al.,

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

No. C 11-1613 SI

Plaintiffs,

ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION
FOR RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE
PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE
JUDGE DATED NOVEMBER 6, 2012

v.
UMG RECORDINGS, INC.,

12

Defendant.

/

13
14

Defendant has filed a motion for relief from a November 6, 2012 discovery order issued by

15

Magistrate Judge James. Docket No. 145. Defendant objects to a portion of that order which would

16

require defendant to disclose its download revenues on an artist-by-artist basis (for artists with

17

agreements with defendant during the putative class period) for each year since 1998. Defendant

18

contends that Judge James ordered the discovery based on plaintiffs’ “bare assurance that they somehow

19

needed this information to meet their (unspecified) burden to prove damages at the class certification

20

stage.” Docket No. 145 at 1:10-12. Defendant contends that this assertion has no foundation, and that

21

it also contradicts plaintiffs’ later contentions to Judge James that damages are irrelevant class

22

certification.

23

The Court has reviewed Judge James’ order and the parties’ underlying briefing that was

24

submitted to Judge James. Defendant has mischaracterized plaintiffs’ articulated need for the discovery

25

at issue. Plaintiffs asserted that “this data will provide evidence from which Plaintiffs will establish that

26

damages can be measured on a class-wide basis and calculated for each artist through a formula or

27

computer program, issue certain to be addressed at class certification.” Docket No. 112 at 2. Judge

28

James ordered defendant to disclose the download revenues because “during class certification, the

1

Court, usually based on arguments set forth by those opposing class certification, evaluates whether

2

class plaintiffs can establish a uniform claim for damages.” Docket No. 133 at 4:8-10. Judge James

3

noted that defendant “has not indicated that it will not raise such issues during classification.” Id. at

4

4:12-13. The Court agrees with Judge James’ reasoning, and accordingly DENIES defendant’s request

5

for relief from this portion of Judge James’ order.
Defendant also asserts that the order would severely infringe the privacy interests of thousands

7

of recording artists with whom defendant has business relationships. Defendant requests that if the

8

Court does not reverse the November 6, 2012 order, that the Court modify the order to allow defendant

9

to provide the requested data without disclosing individual artist names, and instead referring to each

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

6

artist by serial number. The Court finds that this modification is a reasonable measure to protect the

11

privacy of the recording artists, while still providing plaintiffs with the data that they seek to prepare

12

the class certification motion. Accordingly, the Court will permit defendant to provide the information

13

at issue without disclosing individual artist names and instead by referring to each artist by serial

14

numbers.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18

Dated: February 6, 2013
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2