James v. UMG Recordings, Inc.

Filing 168

Discovery Order re Dkt. No. 164. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 8/29/2013. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/29/2013)

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 JOINT
DISCOVERY DISPUTE LETTER
FILED ON July 18, 2012

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Plaintiffs,
12
13

v.

Re: Dkt. No. 164

UMG RECORDINGS, INC., a Delaware
corporation,

14
15

Defendant.
_____________________________________
BACKGROUND

16
17

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

18 good faith and fair dealing, and statutory violations of various state laws against defendant, UMG
19 Recordings, Inc., and its affiliated and subsidiary entities (“UMGR”) filed by plaintiff recording
20 artists and producers (“Plaintiffs”), who allege that UMGR underpaid licensing royalties on digital
21 downloads of Plaintiffs’ recordings by paying them at the lower “records sold” rate, instead of at the
22 higher “licensing” rate in their contracts.
23

The parties have once again been unable to resolve their discovery disputes without assistance

24 from the Court. This Order concerns the most recent dispute, in which UMGR seeks an order
25 compelling further responses to Interrogatory Nos. 29-35. These interrogatories seek information and
26 damages calculations concerning Plaintiffs’ implied breach of the covenant of good faith and fair
27 dealing claims.
28

DISCUSSION

1
2 A.

Interrogatory Nos. 29-30

3

Interrogatory No. 29 asks Plaintiffs to identify, for each agreement alleged in the

4 Consolidated Amended Complaint (“CAC”), whether and in what manner they contend the
5 agreement has been modified other than in writing. UMGR asserts this interrogatory goes to the
6 merits of Plaintiffs’ claims and to the issue of class certification. Jt. Ltr. at 3, Dkt. No. 164. Plaintiffs
7 object to the interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks a compilation of documents in UMGR’s
8 possession or control. Id. at 5-6. Plaintiffs additionally object that the request is overly broad and
9 burdensome, as it would require review of over 14,000 recording contracts, which Plaintiffs are still
10 reviewing. Id. Interrogatory No. 30 asks Plaintiffs to identify whether and in what manner they

12 required to permit adequate assessment of the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims and how they affect class
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11 contend each agreement is ambiguous. UMGR asserts that further response to this interrogatory is

13 certification. Id. at 3-4. The responses are relevant to analysis of claims brought under New York
14 contract law, which bars extrinsic evidence unless a contract term is ambiguous. Id. at 3. Plaintiffs
15 concede that these interrogatories seek relevant information, but object that they are overbroad and
16 unduly burdensome, as a response would require review of over 14,000 putative class members’
17 recording contracts. Id. at 5-6; Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(I) .
18

Plaintiffs’ objections are not well-taken. In the letter brief, Plaintiffs assert that the September

19 2002 Ostroff Memorandum unilaterally overrode provisions of “existing contracts,” even in situations
20 where the contract was not amended in writing. Jt. Ltr. at 8. This claim applies to the putative class
21 as a whole, without need for individual contract analysis. Yet, Plaintiffs failed to provide this
22 information in their interrogatory responses. The Court thus ORDERS Plaintiffs to supplement this
23 interrogatory with all responsive information that does not require individualized contractual review.
24

At this point in the litigation, the Court expects that Plaintiffs have performed at least some

25 review of the putative class contracts in preparation for class certification. However, review of
26 14,000 contracts is a burdensome task, given that the information sought will likely be duplicative or
27 yield diminishing returns. Thus, in accordance with the Court’s prior orders, the Court ORDERS the
28
2

1 parties to meet and confer to determine a reasonable number of contracts that can be used as a
2 representative sample. If the parties cannot agree on a reasonable number of agreements to include in
3 this representative sample, they may file a joint discovery dispute letter (pursuant to the Court’s
4 standing order) that sets forth each of their positions.
5 B.

Interrogatory Nos. 31-35

6

These interrogatories seek to determine whether Plaintiffs’ implied covenant claims involve

7 alleged conduct and damages different from those on which Plaintiffs’ express contract claims are
8 based. Each interrogatory asks Plaintiffs to “state how you will calculate” each item of damages.
9 UMGR contends that Plaintiffs must show how damages will be calculated, and that without such
10 formulae, Plaintiffs’ responses are deficient because they do not allow UMGR to analyze whether the

12 agrees. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiffs to respond to the damages portion of the
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11 implied covenant claims are viable and susceptible to common proof across the class. The Court

13 interrogatories. In answering, Plaintiffs must state, for each type of damages claimed in response to
14 these interrogatories, how such damages will be calculated. To the extent any damages are
15 comprised of a set statutory amount, no calculations or formulae are required.
16

UMGR also complains that Plaintiffs have failed to set forth all material facts on which their

17 implied covenant claim is based, and that their responses improperly reference other documents. The
18 Court declines to compel further responses based on UMGR’s dissatisfaction with the merits, rather
19 than the completeness, of Plaintiffs’ responses. McConnell v. PacifiCorp., Inc., 2008 WL3843003, at
20 *3 (Aug. 15, 2008).
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23 Dated: August 29, 2013
24

_______________________________
Maria-Elena James
United States Magistrate Judge

25
26
27
28
3