Gregory Ingalls et al v. Spotify USA Inc.

Filing 100

ORDER RE DECLARATION OF GREGORY INGALLS re 98 Response ( Non Motion ) filed by Gregory Ingalls Signed by Judge Alsup on 7/24/2017. (whalc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/24/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

GREGORY INGALLS and TONY HONG,
individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated,

13
14
15
16
17

No. C 16-03533 WHA

Plaintiffs,
v.
ORDER RE DECLARATION OF
GREGORY INGALLS

SPOTIFY USA, INC., a Delaware
corporation, and DOES 1–10, inclusive,
Defendants.
/

18
19

On Monday, July 24, plaintiff Gregory Ingalls submitted a sworn declaration regarding

20

his use of Spotify. Ingalls’ declaration states that although he cannot recall the specific songs he

21

streamed in 2013 while he was signed up for Spotify Premium’s paid service, the list Spotify

22

provided him “appear[s] to be consistent with what [he] can recall listening to back in 2013 on

23

Spotify and in general.” He concludes that “while it is possible that he streamed those artists

24

from July 8 to October 7 in 2013" — i.e. during the time he had a paid Spotify Premium

25

subscription — “[he] either streamed them [1] during the free trial period, [2] on Spotify’s free

26

service or [3] with the understanding that [he] was streaming them on Spotify’s free service”

27

(Dkt. No. 98 ¶ 8).

28

Ingalls’ assertion that he may have streamed songs between July 8 and October 7 of 2013
“during the free trial period” is puzzling, as he elsewhere admits that his free trial period ended
on July 7, 2013, and he began to pay for Spotify Premium on July 8, 2013 (see, e.g., Dkt. No. 17

1

¶ 39, amended complaint). Therefore, any songs streamed between July 8 and October 7 of 2013

2

could not have been streamed during his free trial.

3

Setting aside this particular contention, he offers two other explanations for his streaming

4

activity between July 8 and October 7 2013 — that he may have streamed songs on Spotify’s

5

free service or that if he did not stream these songs on the free service, he did so “with the

6

[mistaken] understanding that [he] was streaming them on Spotify’s free service.”

7

By JULY 27 AT NOON, Spotify shall submit a response to Ingalls’ declaration no longer

8

than FIVE PAGES. Spotify shall specifically address the likelihood that Ingalls could have

9

continued using Spotify Premium’s paid service under the mistaken impression that he was using
Spotify’s free service. In support of its response, Spotify may submit exhibits supported by a

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

declaration illustrating the differences between the appearance and functions of Spotify

12

Premium’s paid service, and Spotify’s free service.

13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17
18

Dated: July 24, 2017.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2