James v. UMG Recordings, Inc.

Filing 58

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 12/23/2011)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

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,

13
14

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY

Plaintiffs,

11
12

No. C 11-1613 SI; No. C 11-2431 SI
Related Case: No. C 11-5321 SI

v.
UMG RECORDINGS, INC.,
Defendant.

/

15
The parties have submitted two discovery disputes to the Court.
16
First, the parties disagree about whether the pace of defendant’s production of artist/producer
17
agreements has been expeditious enough. The Court has reviewed the parties’ submissions on this
18
point, and finds it reasonable to require defendant to complete its production of agreements within 90
19
days of the filing date of this order.
20
The second dispute concerns plaintiffs’ request for documents in F.B.T. Productions, LLC v.
21
Aftermath Records. Plaintiffs assert that “the alleged misconduct challenged in F.B.T. was the same as
22
in these cases,” and that the documents sought (such as expert reports, deposition transcripts, and
23
pleadings) contain information that may be highly relevant. Plaintiffs state that they have already
24
obtained the publicly-available documents, and the documents at issue are those that were designated
25
“confidential” or “highly confidential” by the parties or third parties in F.B.T.
26
Defendant objects to producing the F.B.T. documents that are not publicly available on several
27
grounds. First, defendant states that the documents at issue include many that are not conceivably
28

relevant to this action, and defendant states that plaintiffs have refused to engage in a meaningful meet

2

and confer to narrow the F.B.T. discovery issues. For example, defendant states that the “F.B.T. case”

3

is actually a litigation in which discovery on a wide variety of issues was also combined with discovery

4

in a Michigan copyright infringement case brought by a music publisher against Apple and Aftermath

5

Records (neither of whom are parties to this case) which concerned whether Apple and Aftermath had

6

obtained certain publishing licenses to nearly 100 musical compositions on iTunes. Defendant refers

7

to the Michigan copyright infringement case as the “Eight Mile” litigation. Defendant states that

8

witnesses overlapped between Eight Mile and F.B.T., and thus discovery was coordinated. Defendant

9

asserts that “a substantial proportion of the depositions and exhibits Plaintiffs seek are not even related

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

1

to F.B.T. at all, let alone the issues in this case.” Docket No. 56 at 5. As another example, defendant

11

states that even apart from Eight Mile, F.B.T. was actually two consolidated cases: the claim the Ninth

12

Circuit eventually ruled upon which plaintiffs assert is relevant to the present lawsuit, and another

13

lawsuit involving numerous accounting issues specific to Eminem’s and F.B.T.’s recording agreements,

14

which defendant asserts had nothing to do with the royalty treatment of permanent downloads or

15

mastertones.

16

Plaintiffs do not address the distinction between Eight Mile and F.B.T. documents, nor do they

17

address how documents related to the accounting issues specific to Eminem and F.B.T. are relevant to

18

this case. The Court directs the parties to engage in a further meet and confer about the “F.B.T.

19

documents,” and if there are further disagreements about the relevance of particular categories of

20

documents (as opposed to the confidentiality issues, discussed infra), the parties shall file a joint letter

21

brief specifically discussing the relevance of the documents at issue.1

22

Defendant also objects to producing the non-public F.B.T. documents on the ground that these

23

documents have been designated confidential. Defendant states that it is precluded from producing

24
1

25
26
27
28

Another category of documents includes the non-public motion in limine briefing in F.B.T.
Defendant asserts that many of these motions were granted, and thus the excluded material was not
considered by the jury or the Ninth Circuit, and thus “should not be automatically discoverable in this
case, without individualized consideration of the issues that motivated their exclusion from evidence
in F.B.T.” Docket No. 56 at 5. The Court agrees with defendant that a further meet and confer on these
documents is required. However, in order to have an “individualized consideration of the issues that
motivated their exclusion from evidence,” defendant must provide sufficient information to plaintiff’s
counsel about the substance of these motions in order to make the meet and confer productive.
2

1

these documents by the Court’s orders in the F.B.T. case. The Court finds that to the extent that there

2

are non-public documents in the F.B.T. case that are relevant to the claims and defenses in this case,

3

those documents should be produced, subject to the same confidentiality designations and protections

4

in place in the F.B.T. litigation. However, this Court cannot order that those documents be produced

5

without the cooperation of the F.B.T. court. Accordingly, the Court directs the parties to meet and

6

confer and file a motion with the F.B.T. court seeking relief from the protective order to permit

7

production of under seal F.B.T. documents in this case, provided such documents are afforded the same

8

confidentiality protections in this litigation as they have received in the F.B.T. litigation.

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
12

Dated: December 23, 2011
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3