Gottesman v. Santana et al

Filing 243

ORDER Granting in Part Plaintiff's 198 Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses. It is ordered, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is Granted in Part. It is granted except as it relates to the obligation of Hi Fidelity, at this time, to provide financial discovery predating October 2012. Santana Defendants are hereby ordered to respond to the discovery requests Plaintiff seeks to compel by 12/22/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt on 11/29/2017. (mpl)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

ERIC GOTTESMAN,

Case No.: 16-cv-2902 JLS (JLB)
Plaintiff,

11
12

v.

13

CARLOS SANTANA, et al.,

ORDER GRANTING IN PART
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY
RESPONSES

Defendants.

14
15

[ECF No. 198]

16
17

Before the Court is Plaintiff Eric Gottesman’s Motion to Compel Further Discovery

18

Responses from Santana Defendants. (ECF No. 198.) Plaintiff seeks to compel responses

19

to his first set of requests for production and interrogatories propounded on the Santana

20

Defendants.1

21

overbroad and unduly burdensome because they seek information prior to November 29,

22

2013, the date Santana Defendants argue represents the statute of limitations cutoff for

23

Plaintiff’s claims and the natural boundary for discoverable information, and because the

(Id.)

Santana Defendants object to Plaintiff’s discovery requests as

24
25
26
27
28

“Santana Defendants” includes Carlos Santana; Michael Vrionis; Santana Tesoro, LLC; Guts & Grace
Records, Inc.; Universal Tone Management, LLC; Cristalino, Inc.; Santana IV, LLC; Salvador Santana;
Hi Fidelity Entertainment, Inc.; Dawn DeBisschop; Howard Schomer; Constellation Brands, Inc.; Casa
Noble Spirits, LLC; Casa Noble Holdings, LLC; Art.com, Inc.; Band Tees Apparel; Double O, LLC;
GFM Licensing Group, LLC; The Rock.com Group, Inc.; and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Double O, LLC has
recently reached a settlement in this action.
1

1
16-cv-2902 JLS (JLB)

1

parties allegedly had an agreement limiting Santana Defendants production obligations.

2

(ECF No. 204.)

3

I.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

4

Plaintiff is an artist and illustrator who has created artwork, logos, and signage for a

5

number of prominent rock n’ roll performers, including Carlos Santana, Jimi Hendrix, Tom

6

Petty, Billy Idol, the Sex Pistols, Metallica, and Red Hot Chili Peppers. (ECF No. 183 at

7

10.)2 On or about 2005, Defendant Santana Tesoro, a company affiliated with Carlos

8

Santana, hired Plaintiff to produce artwork for use in Santana marketing and merchandise.

9

(ECF No. 190 at 6.) Plaintiff filed this case on November 29, 2016. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff

10

filed his Second Amended Complaint on August 18, 2017, alleging claims of copyright

11

infringement, vicarious and/or contributory copyright infringement, violation of 17 U.S.C.

12

§ 1202, and breach of contract against thirty-three defendants. (ECF No. 183.) Plaintiff

13

alleges that between approximately 2005 and 2014 defendants exploited and infringed

14

twenty pieces of artwork he created by (1) granting unauthorized licenses and/or

15

sublicenses; (2) approving, selling, marketing, and distributing products that bore the

16

artwork without permission; and (3) publishing and displaying the artwork without

17

permission. (Id. at 11-24.) Plaintiff alleges that any licenses provided to defendants were

18

limited to specific types of merchandise and materials, such as specific tour t-shirts or

19

backstage passes. (See id. at 11, 13-14.) Plaintiff alleges that he did not provide any usage

20

rights or a license of any kind for two pieces of artwork. (ECF No. 198-1 at 2.)

21

Several motions to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint are pending before the

22

District Judge. (ECF Nos. 188, 190, 191, 195.) As relevant to the parties’ current

23

discovery dispute, Santana Defendants seek to dismiss Plaintiff’s copyright claims that

24

accrued prior to November 29, 2013 as barred by the three-year statute of limitations

25

provided by 17 U.S.C. § 507(b). (ECF No. 190 at 10-13.) Because Plaintiff did not plead

26

the date on which he knew or reasonably should have known about the alleged

27
28

2

All page numbers reference the page numbers created by the CM/ECF system.
2
16-cv-2902 JLS (JLB)

1

infringement, Santana Defendants argue, the statute of limitations bars Plaintiff’s claims

2

for infringement prior to November 29, 2013. (Id.)

3

Plaintiff propounded his first set of requests for production and interrogatories on

4

the Santana Defendants seeking, inter alia, information from 2005 to present regarding the

5

purchase and sale of products bearing the allegedly infringing artwork and revenue, costs,

6

and profits relating to the licensing of Plaintiff’s artwork. (See ECF Nos. 198-3 – 198-42.)

7

Specifically, Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses to the following requests for

8

production and interrogatories:

9
10
11
12
13
14

Party
Santana Tesoro, LLC

Universal Tone
Management, LLC
Hi Fidelity Entertainment,
LLC
Santana IV, LLC

15
16

Art.com, Inc.

17

Band Tees Apparel, Inc.

18

Carlos Santana

19

Casa Noble Holdings, Inc.

20
21

Casa Noble Spirits

22

Constellation Brands, Inc.

23

Cristalino, Inc.

24
25

Dawn DeBisschop

26

Double O, LLC

27

GFM Licensing, LLC

28

Requests for Production
1-11, 20, 21, 29, 47, 49, 50, 51,
54, 55, 56, 58, 67, 68, 73
(ECF No. 198-3)
1-4, 6-12, 21, 22, 29, 47, 49, 50,
51, 54, 55, 56, 58
(ECF No. 198-5)
1-10, 25, 26, 41, 43, 44, 59
(ECF No. 198-7)
1-12, 20, 29, 47, 49, 50, 51, 54,
55, 56, 58, 67, 68
(ECF No. 198-9)
1-10, 25, 26, 41, 43, 44, 48
(ECF No. 198-11)
1-10, 25, 26, 41, 43, 44, 48
(ECF No. 198-13)
1-11, 20, 21, 22
(ECF No. 198-15)
1-11, 26, 41-48
(ECF No. 198-17)
1-11, 26, 41-48
(ECF No. 198-19)
1-11, 26, 41-48
(ECF No. 198-21)
1-12, 20, 29, 47, 49-52, 54-56,
58, 67, 68
(ECF No. 198-23)
1-10, 25, 26, 41, 43, 44, 59
(ECF No. 198-25)
1-10, 25, 26, 41, 43, 44, 48
(ECF No. 198-27)
1-10, 25, 26, 41, 43, 44, 48
(ECF No. 198-29)

Interrogatories
2-4, 6, 9, 10, 15
(ECF No. 198-4)
2-4, 6, 9, 10, 15
(ECF No. 198-6)
2-4, 6, 9, 10, 15
(ECF No. 198-8)
2-4, 6, 9, 10, 15
(ECF No. 198-10)
2-4, 7, 10-12, 16
(ECF No. 198-12)
2-4, 7, 10-12, 16
(ECF No. 198-14)
2-4, 6, 9, 10, 15
(ECF No. 198-16)
2-4, 7, 10, 11, 15
(ECF No. 198-18)
2-4, 7, 10, 11, 15
(ECF No. 198-20)
2-4, 7, 10, 11, 15
(ECF No. 198-22)
2-4, 6, 9, 10
(ECF No. 198-24)
2-4, 6, 9, 10, 11
(ECF No. 198-26)
2-4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12
(ECF No. 198-28)
2-4, 7, 10-12, 16
(ECF No. 198-30)

3
16-cv-2902 JLS (JLB)

1
2
3
4

Guts & Grace Records,
Inc.
Michael Vrionis

Salvador Santana

5
6
7

Howard Schomer
The Rock.com, Inc.

8
Wal-mart Stores, Inc.

9

1 -11, 20, 21, 29, 47, 49-52, 5456, 58, 67, 68
(ECF No. 198-31)
1-11, 20, 21, 29, 47, 49-52, 5456, 58, 67, 68
(ECF No. 198-33)
1-11, 20, 21, 29, 47, 49-52, 5456, 58, 67, 68
(ECF No. 198-35)
1-10, 25, 26, 41, 43, 44, 59
(ECF No. 198-37)
1-10, 25, 26, 41, 43, 44, 48
(ECF No. 198-39)
1-10, 25, 26, 41, 43, 44, 48
(ECF No. 198-41)

2-4, 6, 9, 10, 15
(ECF No. 198-32)
2-4, 6, 9, 10, 15
(ECF No. 198-34)
2-4, 6, 9, 10, 15
(ECF No. 198-36)
2-4, 7, 10, 11
(ECF No. 198-38)
2-4, 7, 10-12
(ECF No. 198-40)
2-4, 7, 10-12
(ECF No. 198-42)

10

Santana Defendants objected to Plaintiff’s above requests as overbroad because they

11

sought “information related to the artwork at issue but outside the applicable three-year

12

statute of limitations for copyright infringement.” (Id.) Accordingly, Santana Defendants

13

limited their responses to the period of November 29, 2013 to present. (Id.) Santana

14

Defendants further argue that Plaintiff’s discovery requests are improper because (1) the

15

statute of limitations bars recovery for claims accruing three years before this action was

16

filed on November 29, 2016, (2) the discovery demanded in Plaintiff’s motion to compel

17

breaks with an earlier agreement between counsel regarding the scope of discovery, and

18

(3) the discovery is disproportionate to the needs of the case. (ECF No. 204 at 5.)

19

II.

LEGAL STANDARDS

20

Nonprivileged information is discoverable under Rule 26 if it is (1) relevant, and (2)

21

proportional to the needs of the case. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), as amended

22

in 2015, provides that parties—

23
24
25
26

may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to
any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case,
considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in
controversy, the parties’ relative access to the information, the parties’
resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether
the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.

27
28

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
4
16-cv-2902 JLS (JLB)

1

Evidence must be “relevant to any party’s claim or defense” to fall within the scope

2

of permissible discovery. Id. The 2015 amendment to Rule 26(b) deleted the phrase

3

“reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence” because it was

4

often misconstrued to define the scope of discovery and had the potential to “swallow any

5

other limitation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) advisory committee notes to 2015 amendment.

6

See also San Diego Unified Port Dist. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburg, PA, No.

7

15CV1401-BEN-MDD, 2017 WL 3877732, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2017).

8

amendment replaced this phrase with the statement that information “need not be

9

admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) advisory committee

10
11

The

notes to 2015 amendment.
Information must also be “proportional to the needs of the case” to fall within the

12

scope of permissible discovery.

13

proportionality of a party’s discovery requests, a court should consider the importance of

14

the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to

15

the information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the

16

issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely

17

benefit. Id.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

When analyzing the

18

Rule 33 provides that a party may serve on any other party interrogatories that relate

19

to any matter within the scope of discovery defined in Rule 26(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2).

20

Similarly, Rule 34 provides that a party may serve requests for documents or tangible

21

things on any other party that relate to any matter within the scope of discovery defined in

22

Rule 26(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). If a party fails to answer an interrogatory submitted

23

under Rule 33, or if the answer provided is evasive or incomplete, the propounding party

24

may bring a motion to compel. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a). The propounding party may

25

also move to compel a response if a party fails to produce documents requested under Rule

26

34. See id. “The party seeking to compel discovery has the burden of establishing that its

27

request satisfies the relevancy requirements of Rule 26(b)(1).

28

opposing discovery has the burden of showing that the discovery should be prohibited, and

Thereafter, the party

5
16-cv-2902 JLS (JLB)

1

the burden of clarifying, explaining or supporting its objections.” Bryant v. Ochoa, 2009

2

WL 1390794, at *1 (S.D. Cal. May 14, 2009). Those opposing discovery are “required to

3

carry a heavy burden of showing” why discovery should be denied. Blankenship v. Hearst

4

Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975).

5 III.

ANALYSIS

6

The parties dispute whether Santana Defendants must respond to discovery for

7

financial information for the time period prior to November 29, 2013,3 the date before

8

which, the Santana Defendants maintain, Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the statute of

9

limitations. The Santana Defendants further dispute that they are obligated to produce

10

financial documentation, for any time-period, asserting that an agreement between the

11

parties limits their obligation to the production of spreadsheets containing the financial

12

information (subject to the production of substantiating documentation on a case-by-case

13

basis). The Court finds that Plaintiff has met his burden to establish that the information

14

he seeks is relevant to his claims and defenses. Santana Defendants have not sufficiently

15

established that the requested discovery contravenes an agreement between the parties and

16

have not, for the most part, met their burden to establish that this discovery would be

17

unduly burdensome. Accordingly, the court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff’s motion to

18

compel.
a. Scope of the Parties’ Discovery Agreement

19
20

The parties disagree about the scope of an agreement reached during the meet and

21

confer process. Santana Defendants assert that the parties agreed Santana Defendants

22

would only produce financial information on sales, licensing revenue, and profits derived

23

from the sale and licensing of products bearing the artwork at issue in spreadsheet form

24

and that they would not need to produce the “backup” documents used to create the

25
26
27
28

The declaration of Santana Defendants’ counsel Casey Williams states that Santana Defendants objected
to providing “financial data” prior to November 13, 2013 (ECF No. 204-1 at ¶ 5); however, Santana
Defendants objected to the production of information prior to November 29, 2013 in their discovery
responses and also use this date throughout their opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to compel. The Court
uses the later November 29, 2013 date as the disputed cutoff date for discovery responses.
3

6
16-cv-2902 JLS (JLB)

1

spreadsheets, unless specifically requested by Plaintiff on a case-by-case basis. (Id. at 6-

2

7.) Accordingly, Santana Defendants argue that the only controversy before the Court is

3

whether the data provided in the spreadsheets should be limited to the period of November

4

29, 2013 to present. (Id. at 6.)4

5

In contrast, Plaintiff asserts that the parties agreed that, in an effort to streamline

6

discovery, Santana Defendants would provide the spreadsheets in addition to producing

7

the underlying financial documents. (ECF No. 208 at 5.) Plaintiff acknowledges that he

8

had agreed that receipts to individual customers by retailers or from sales of merchandise

9

at live shows did not need to be provided, but did not agree that Santana Defendants did

10

not have to produce any financial documents. (Id.) Plaintiff argues that he confirmed with

11

Santana Defendants, in the meet and confer process, that they would produce the financial

12

documents underlying the agreed-upon spreadsheets. (Id. at 6.) Plaintiff argues that the

13

contested financial documents are necessary because in addition to providing the revenue

14

and profit information reflected in the spreadsheets, these documents will allow Plaintiff

15

to identify other parties implicated in the distribution of the infringed artwork and

16

demonstrate the scope of Santana Defendants’ infringement. (Id.)

17

To the extent Santana Defendants are relying on a perceived agreement with Plaintiff

18

to limit their discovery obligations, they have not met their burden to establish that there

19

was a meeting of the minds as to the terms of that agreement.

20

b. Statute of Limitations Objection

21

Plaintiff points out that Santana Defendants do not dispute that the type of

22

information he seeks is relevant to his claims, but only assert the statute of limitations bars

23

some of those claims, and as a result, discovery should be limited to the time-period after

24

November 29, 2013. (ECF No. 198-1 at 6.) Plaintiff argues that Santana Defendants’

25

position regarding the impact of the statute of limitations on their discovery obligations is

26
27
28

4

Santana Defendants state that they agreed to, and have, produced factual information relating to liability
from 2005 to present, as opposed to financial data. (ECF No. 204 at 7.) Accordingly, the Court considers
the dispute before it to be limited to whether Plaintiff is entitled to additional financial discovery.
7
16-cv-2902 JLS (JLB)

1

unavailing because: (1) whether the pre-2013 claims are barred by the statute of limitations

2

is a question of fact that has not been decided; (2) even if the district judge grants Santana

3

Defendants’ pending motion to dismiss, Plaintiff can amend his pleadings to allege

4

discovery of infringement and defeat the statute of limitations; (3) the very discovery at

5

issue here may aid Plaintiff in establishing a “discovery rule” defense to Santana

6

Defendants’ statute of limitations argument; and (4) the pre-2013 discovery is relevant

7

even if Santana Defendants prevail on their statute of limitations argument. (Id. at 7-8.)

8

Plaintiff argues that the Court should not stay discovery of information prior to November

9

29, 2013 while Defendants’ motion to dismiss is pending because it would delay critical

10

discovery, including scheduled depositions, and require modification of the scheduling

11

order. (Id. at 11.)

12

Santana Defendants argue that because Rule 26(b)(1) limits the scope of discovery

13

to information that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense, the statute of limitations

14

provides a natural boundary for discoverable information. (ECF No. 204 at 7.) In this

15

case, Santana Defendants argue, the Copyright Act provides a three-year statute of

16

limitations cutoff. Santana Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s operative complaint does not

17

plead a discovery date, so Plaintiff cannot benefit from the “discovery rule.” (Id. at 7-8)

18

(citing Polar Bear Prods., Inc. v. Timex Corp., 384 F.3d 700 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that

19

a plaintiff may recover damages beyond the three-year statutory period if the copyright

20

owner did not discover, and could not have reasonably discovered, the infringement prior

21

to the three-year statute of limitations period)). Santana Defendants argue that Plaintiff

22

also cannot benefit from the “discovery rule” because Plaintiff cannot support any claim

23

he might make that delayed discovery was reasonable. (Id. at 9-11.) As discussed above,

24

Santana Defendants also filed a motion to dismiss on this theory, which is currently

25

pending before the District Judge. (ECF No. 190 at 10-13.) Santana Defendants argue

26

here that the application of this statute of limitations limits their obligation to respond to

27

financial discovery to the period from November 29, 2013 to the present, and any earlier

28

financial discovery is irrelevant. (ECF No. 204 at 7-10.)
8
16-cv-2902 JLS (JLB)

1

Plaintiff has met his burden to establish that financial information prior to November

2

29, 2013 is relevant to his claims and defenses. See Bryant, 2009 WL 1390794 at *1.

3

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that between approximately 2005 and 2015, he created twenty

4

pieces of artwork that Santana Defendants, among other named defendants, infringed.

5

(ECF No. 183 at 10-23.) Plaintiff alleges that defendants exploited and infringed this

6

artwork by (1) granting unauthorized licenses and/or sublicenses; (2) approving, selling,

7

marketing, and distributing products that bore the artwork without permission; and (3)

8

publishing and displaying the artwork without permission. (Id. at 11-24.) Plaintiff’s

9

discovery requests seek information regarding, inter alia, the purchase and sale of products

10

bearing the allegedly infringing artwork and revenue, costs, and profits relating to the

11

licensing of Plaintiff’s artwork from 2005 to present. (See ECF Nos. 198-3 – 198-42.)

12

Santana Defendants do not dispute that the type of information Plaintiff requests is relevant

13

to his claims and defenses. Instead, they argue that information before the statute of

14

limitations period is irrelevant because this affirmative defense bars claims that accrued

15

prior to November 29, 2013. Accordingly, unless the statute of limitations bars discovery

16

prior to November 29, 2013, Plaintiff has met his burden to establish that the discovery

17

requests at issue are relevant.

18

The statute of limitations is not a rigid barrier separating discoverable information

19

from information outside the scope of discovery. Santana Defendants cite no binding

20

authority for the proposition that the statute of limitations provides a definitive boundary

21

for discoverable information. (See ECF No. 204.) Santana Defendants cite to Klein v.

22

Lionel Corp., 130 F. Supp. 725 (D. Del. 1955) for support, but this case did not hold that

23

information prior to the statute of limitations period is always outside the scope of

24

discoverable information. Information before the statute of limitations period may fall

25

within the scope of discoverable information. See, e.g., Owens v. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co.,

26

221 F.R.D. 649, 655 (D. Kan. 2004) (“[D]iscovery of information both before and after the

27

liability period . . . may be relevant and/or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery

28

of admissible evidence and courts commonly extend the scope of discovery to a reasonable
9
16-cv-2902 JLS (JLB)

1

number of years both prior to and following such period.”); Empire Volkswagen, Inc. v.

2

World-Wide Volkswagen Corp., 95 F.R.D. 398, 399 (S.D.N.Y. 1982) (discovery in

3

antitrust cases “routinely goes beyond the statutory period”); Hatamian v. Advanced Micro

4

Devices, Inc., No. 14CV00226YGRJSC, 2015 WL 7180662, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 16,

5

2015) (“In general, courts allow discovery to extend to events before and after the period

6

of actual liability so as to provide context.”). Here, for example, information prior to the

7

applicable statute of limitations period could be relevant to Plaintiff’s claims if it served as

8

indirect evidence of the scope of a license Plaintiff provided to Santana Defendants for the

9

artwork at issue.

10

Even if the statute of limitations provided a barrier to discoverable information in

11

this case, the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense that Santana Defendants have

12

not yet established. See Allen v. Similasan Corp., No. 12-CV-376-BAS-JLB, 2014 WL

13

2212120, at *2 (S.D. Cal. May 27, 2014) (statute of limitations is an affirmative defense

14

that does not generally affect discovery); Adobe Sys. Inc. v. Christenson, No. 2:10-CV-

15

00422-LRH, 2011 WL 540278, at *3 (D. Nev. Feb. 7, 2011). “If the running of the statute

16

[of limitations] is apparent on the face of the complaint, the defense may be raised by a

17

motion to dismiss.” Jablon v. Dean Witter & Co., 614 F.2d 677, 682 (9th Cir. 1980).

18

Santana Defendants have raised this argument in their pending motion to dismiss and the

19

statute of limitations issue will be addressed on the merits by the District Judge. (See ECF

20

No. 190.) To the extent Santana Defendants seek a ruling by the Magistrate Judge on the

21

merits of the statute of limitations issue as a predicate to ruling on this discovery matter,

22

the Court declines to make such a ruling. Nor is this Court prepared to excuse Santana

23

Defendants from producing financial discovery while the motion to dismiss is pending, in

24

essence granting a stay of discovery that has not been requested. See Adobe Sys. Inc., 2011

25

WL 540278, at *3. Plaintiff served the discovery requests at issue on Santana Defendants

26

between June 12, 2017 and June 20, 2017. (ECF No. 207-1 at ¶ 3.) Santana Defendants

27

responded with objections between August 9, 2017 and August 21, 2017. (Id. at ¶ 4.) The

28

parties have been meeting and conferring on this issue since August 14, 2017. (Id. at ¶ 6.)
10
16-cv-2902 JLS (JLB)

1

On September 1, 2017, Santana Defendants filed their motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 190.)

2

Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel on September 27, 2017. (ECF No. 198.)

3

Santana Defendants could have sought a stay of certain discovery with the filing of their

4

motion to dismiss, or after objecting to Plaintiff’s discovery requests, but chose not to do

5

so. They now seek to stand on their initial objections to Plaintiff’s discovery requests

6

months after objecting and without having filed a motion to stay discovery. The Court

7

declines to sua sponte issue such an order.5

8

c. Undue Burden

9

Santana Defendants also argue that responding to the financial discovery at issue is

10

unduly burdensome and the requested discovery is disproportionate to the needs of the

11

case. (ECF No. 204 at 11-14.) Santana Defendants have not carried their “heavy burden”

12

to demonstrate that this Court should excuse all Santana Defendants from responding to

13

this discovery. See Blankenship, 519 F.2d at 429.

14

Santana Defendants argue that the amount in controversy is minimal, as evidenced

15

by “preliminary numbers” and financial information from a handful of defendants. (ECF

16

No. 204 at 12.) The Court is not persuaded that such “preliminary” information and

17

selective financial data establish that the amount in controversy is minimal. Indeed,

18

Plaintiff seeks the information at issue, in part, to establish the amount in controversy.

19

Santana Defendants argue that the attorney’s fees already generated in responding

20

to Plaintiff’s discovery requests, and the amount of estimated fees if the Court grants

21

Plaintiff’s motion to compel, are extremely high. (Id. at 13.) The Court does not doubt

22

that Santana Defendants have collectively incurred substantial costs in attorney’s fees.

23
24
25
26
27
28

5

Even if Santana Defendants had requested a stay of discovery here, district courts in this circuit have
rejected the general proposition that a pending dispositive motion justifies a stay of discovery. See, e.g.,
Tradebay LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 603 (D. Nev. 2011). The Court declines to analyze the
merits of such a hypothetical motion as Santana Defendants have not requested this relief and the standard
for granting a stay in this context places a magistrate judge “in a difficult situation” of having to analyze
the merits of a motion pending before the district judge. See GTE Wireless, Inc. v. Qualcomm, Inc., 192
F.R.D. 284, 287 (S.D. Cal. 2000).
11
16-cv-2902 JLS (JLB)

1

Donahue Fitzgerald LLP represents twenty separate defendants. The fact that twenty

2

defendants have collectively spent a considerable amount of time and effort responding to

3

Plaintiff’s discovery requests is not surprising. High collective costs do not establish that

4

each defendant will be unduly burdened by producing the requested information.

5

Lastly, Santana Defendants put forth specific evidence that producing the requested

6

information would be a burden for five out of the twenty of the Santana Defendants. From

7

this, and more generalized assertions about burden, Santana Defendants seek relief on

8

behalf of all, even though they acknowledge that “the process would be different for each

9

defendant” to produce the requested information. (ECF No. 204-1 at ¶ 6.) Fifteen Santana

10

Defendants6 have not put forth any specific evidence that it would be a burden for them to

11

produce the requested financial information. (See ECF No. 204.) Accordingly, these

12

fifteen Santana Defendants have not established that the requested discovery would be

13

unduly burdensome and must produce responsive information.

14

Hi Fidelity Entertainment Inc. (Hi Fidelity) and Santana Tesoro LLC, Guts & Grace

15

Records, Inc., Cristalino, Inc., and Santana IV (Santana Management) submitted

16

declarations regarding the burden of producing the information Plaintiff requests. (ECF

17

Nos. 204-2, 206 (sealed).)7 Hi Fidelity argues that its royalty reports and sales, costs, and

18

tour line records have not historically included images of the products, making it difficult

19

to identify which products bear the allegedly infringed artwork. (ECF No. 204-2 at ¶ 5.)

20

Hi Fidelity notes that some records after 2014 have images, which will make the process

21

easier for that time period. (Id.) Hi Fidelity also argues that producing the backup

22

documentation for the financial spreadsheets will interfere with the operation of its

23
24
25
26
27
28

6

Carlos Santana; Michael Vrionis; Universal Tone Management, LLC; Salvador Santana; Dawn
DeBisschop; Howard Schomer; Constellation Brands, Inc.; Casa Noble Spirits, LLC; Casa Noble
Holdings, LLC; Art.com, Inc.; Band Tees Apparel; Double O, LLC; GFM Licensing Group, LLC; The
Rock.com Group, Inc.; and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
7
Santana Defendants also filed a declaration by Casey Williams, which sets forth the limited proceeds
derived by Defendants Art.com, Rock.com and Band Tees with respect to the sale of allegedly infringing
products. (ECF No. 204-1 at 4.) This declaration does not, however, address burden.
12
16-cv-2902 JLS (JLB)

1

business as its president is the only person capable of identifying these records. (Id. at ¶

2

6.) Hi Fidelity states that it changed over its purchase order system in October of 2012,

3

and due to the loss of the information with the previous system, identifying responsive

4

documents would require a page-by-page review of hardcopy documents in archive. (Id.

5

at ¶ 8.) The Court finds that Hi Fidelity has met its burden to establish that it would be

6

unduly burdensome for it to respond to financial discovery for the period prior to October

7

2012, at least unless and until the District Court rules that Plaintiff’s pre-2013 claims

8

survive a motion to dismiss.

9

Santana Management argues that providing all backup documents, such as purchase

10

orders, invoices, quarterly reports, and sales receipts would be particularly burdensome

11

and require shipping a substantial amount of records from Las Vegas, Nevada to San

12

Rafael, California. (ECF No. 206 (sealed) at ¶¶ 5-6.) It would then take Santana

13

Management an estimated minimum of 100 hours to review the records and provide the

14

documents to counsel for separate review. (Id. at ¶ 7.) The Court recognizes that

15

production of the information Plaintiff requests will impose a burden on Santana

16

Defendants. Santana Management has not demonstrated that this burden outweighs

17

Plaintiff’s interest in discovery of this information. Santana Defendants have not provided

18

the Court with enough information to order a narrowed production and, accordingly,

19

Santana Defendants’ objections to production of the requested financial are overruled, as

20

they have not established that production of this information will be unduly burdensome

21

and disproportionate to the needs of the case.

22 IV.

Costs and Fees

23

Rule 37(a)(5) provides that when a motion to compel discovery is granted, “the court

24

must, after giving an opportunity to be heard, require the party or deponent whose conduct

25

necessitated the motion . . . to pay the movant’s reasonable expenses incurred in making

26

the motion, including attorney’s fees.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A). The court must not

27

award expenses, however, if the movant failed to attempt in good faith to obtain the

28

discovery before filing the motion, the opposing party’s nondisclosure, response, or
13
16-cv-2902 JLS (JLB)

1

objection was substantially justified, or other circumstances make an award of expenses

2

unjust. Id.

3

The Court declines to impose Plaintiff’s costs and fees in the making of this motion

4

on Santana Defendants because Plaintiff did not request such an award and the parties have

5

engaged with the Court on this issue at length.

6

V.

CONCLUSION

7

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 198) is

8

GRANTED IN PART. It is granted except as it relates to the obligation of Hi Fidelity, at

9

this time, to provide financial discovery predating October 2012. Santana Defendants are

10

hereby ordered to respond to the discovery requests Plaintiff seeks to compel by December

11

22, 2017.8

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 29, 2017

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
8

27
28

In their conclusion, Santana Defendants also seek guidance regarding whether and how they should file
a motion for summary judgment on this issue. (ECF No. 204 at 14.) Santana Defendants should address
this inquiry to the District Judge, rather than in the conclusion of their opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to
compel. Accordingly, the Court does not address this issue.
14
16-cv-2902 JLS (JLB)