Arista Records LLC et al v. Lime Wire LLC et al

Filing 597

ORDER: After an independent review of the record, I conclude that there are no material facts or circumstances to distinguish Google's objection from the objections of the other three non-parties. Because I agree with Judge Wood's analysis, I hereby adopt the reasoning of her opinion and order as my own, and reverse Magistrate Judge Freeman's order insofar as it grants defendants' motion to compel compliance with the subpoena served on non-party Google. I affirm Magistrate Judge Freeman's order insofar as it denies defendants' motion to compel. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein on 3/4/2011) (lnl)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

--------------------------------------------------------------
ARISTA RECORDS LLC; ATLANTIC RECORDING CORPORATION; BMG MUSIC; CAPITOL RECORDS, INC.; ELEKTRA ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC.; INTERS COPE RECORDS; LAF ACE RECORDS LLC; MOTOWN RECORD COMPANY, L.P.; PRIORITY RECORDS LLC; SONY BMG MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT; UMG RECORDINGS, INC.; VIRGIN RECORDS AMERICA, INC.; and WARNER BROS. RECORDS INC., Plaintiffs, -againstLIME WIRE LLC; LIME GROUP LLC; MARK GORTON; GREG BILDSON, and M.J.G. LIME WIRE FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Defendants.

)(

ORDER
06 Civ. 5936 (KMW)

ALVIN K. HELLERSTEIN, U.S.D.J.:

---------------------------------------------------------------

)(

On March 1, 2011, District Judge Kimba M. Wood issued an opinion and order reversing in part Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman's order, dated January 31,2011, which, in turn, granted in part and denied in part defendants' motions to compel compliance with subpoenas served on four non-parties, Yahoo!, Inc.; MySpace, Inc.; Google Inc.; and iMesh, Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiary, MusicLab, LLC. Each non-party had lodged separately a written objection to Magistrate Judge Freeman's order. Judge Wood's opinion and order addressed and found meritorious the objections filed by Yahoo!, MySpace, and iMesh. However, due to a conflict of interest, Judge Wood recused herself from deciding Google's objection and instead referred that matter to the undersigned, sitting in Part One.

1

After an independent review ofthe record, I conclude that there are no material facts or circumstances to distinguish Google's objection from the objections of the other three non-parties. Because I agree with Judge Wood's analysis, I hereby adopt the reasoning of her opinion and order as my own, and reverse Magistrate Judge Freeman's order insofar as it grants defendants' motion to compel compliance with the subpoena served on non-party Google. I affirm Magistrate Judge Freeman's order insofar as it denies defendants' motion to compel. SO ORDERED. Dated: March˘,2011 New York, New York United States District Judge (Part One)

2