James v. UMG Recordings, Inc.

Filing 157

Discovery Order re: Docket No. 153. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 5/9/2013. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/9/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

Northern District of California

7
8
9

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,

10

No. C 11-1613 SI (MEJ)
ORDER REGARDING JOINT
DISCOVERY DISPUTE LETTER
FILED ON APRIL 1, 2013

Plaintiffs,
12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

v.

Re: Dkt. No. 153

UMG RECORDINGS, INC., a Delaware
corporation,

13
14

Defendant.
_____________________________________

15
16

BACKGROUND
This is a consolidated putative class action for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of

17 good faith and fair dealing, and statutory violations of various state laws against defendant, UMG
18 Recordings, Inc., and its affiliated and subsidiary entities (“UMGR”). Plaintiff recording artists and
19 producers (“Plaintiffs”) allege that UMGR underpaid licensing royalties on digital downloads of
20 Plaintiffs’ recordings by paying them at the lower “records sold” rate, instead of at the higher
21 “licensing” rate in their contracts.
22

On April 1, 2013, the parties filed yet another joint letter, in which UMGR seeks to compel

23 further responses to Interrogatory Nos. 10 and 12. Dkt. 153. Dkt. No. 153. These interrogatories
24 seek Plaintiffs’ methodology and manner in which they calculated damages for the representative
25 sample of named plaintiffs, pursuant to this Court’s November 19, 2012 Discovery Order. Plaintiffs
26 argue the motion should be denied because they have fully complied with the Discovery Order by
27 providing a plausible methodology to demonstrate that damages can be proven on an individual and
28 class-wide basis. Id. at 3-4.

DISCUSSION

1
2

Interrogatory No. 10 required Plaintiffs to state, with particularity, “the nature and amount of

3 damages” and the “precise manner” in which the amount of such damages was calculated.
4 Interrogatory No. 12 required Plaintiffs to state with particularity the amount of money under5 reported, and the precise manner in which the amount was calculated. Plaintiffs originally objected
6 to these interrogatories on the grounds they would provide the information at class certification. This
7 Court ordered supplemental responses on November 19, 2012, which directed Plaintiffs to provide
8 responses based on an agreed-upon representative sample. Dkt. No. 138.
9

In their supplemental responses, Plaintiffs provided two charts, which set forth, with

10 particularity, a uniform method of calculating music download and ringtone royalties for the named

12 supplemental responses also include the nature of the damages claimed. Prior to class certification,
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11 plaintiffs, and which explain the precise manner in which damages can be calculated. The

13 Plaintiffs need not supply a “precise damage formula,” but must offer a proposed method for
14 determining damages that is not “so insubstantial as to amount to no method at all.” In re TFT-LCD
15 (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig., 267 F.R.D. 291, 314 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (Illston, J.), abrogated in part on
16 other grounds by In re ATM Fee Antitrust Litig., 686 F.3d 741 (9th Cir. 2012).
17

In a previous order, Plaintiffs were directed to respond to these interrogatories based on an

18 agreed-upon representative sample consisting of the nine named plaintiffs for this very purpose. Dkt.
19 138. The Court finds that Plaintiffs have complied with its previous order by setting forth the
20 parameters of each individual class members’ damage theory and stating how Plaintiffs intend to
21 calculate damages for each named plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion to compel
22 further responses to these interrogatories.
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
Dated: May 9, 2013

_______________________________
Maria-Elena James
United States Magistrate Judge

25
26
27
28
2