Big Daddy Games LLC v. Leja Distributing Inc
Filing
94
ORDER granting 47 Motion to Compel, signed by Chief Judge William C Griesbach on 05/22/2014. Leja is to identify the customers it sold the infringing games to and provide non-redacted documentation of those relationships. Big Daddys request for costs and attorneys fees is denied, however. Given the Lejas argument against disclosure and the lack of clear authority on the issue, I find its position substantially justified. (cc: all counsel) (Griesbach, William)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
BIG DADDY GAMES, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 13-C-1430
LEJA DISTRIBUTING, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
DECISION AND ORDER
In this copyright action, Big Daddy Games, LLC sued Leja Distributing, Inc. and several
other defendants for infringement. It now moves to compel answers to its written interrogatories
and other discovery requests. For the reasons given below, the motion will be granted.
In 2010 a company called Reel Spins Studios began manufacturing “amusement devices”
(slot-style machines commonly found in bars) that infringed on Big Daddy Games’ copyright. That
dispute was resolved in a lawsuit in the Western District of Wisconsin. In this action Big Daddy
is suing the end-users (rather than the manufacturer) of the infringing products, which include game
distributors as well as tavern owners. As part of its effort to discover the extent of the infringing
uses, Big Daddy served discovery requests upon Leja Distributing, asking it who it sold the games
to and how much revenue it generated. Leja refused to provide the names of its customers on the
grounds that it didn’t want them to be harassed by Big Daddy. It did provide revenue information,
but Big Daddy asserts that such information cannot be verified without knowing who the actual
customers are.
Leja’s business is based on relationships with restaurants and taverns. It buys games from
manufacturers and then pays restaurants and bars to allow Leja to place its games there. It refused
to produce the names of its customers, it says, based on an understanding it had with opposing
counsel, as well as the fact that it had provisionally agreed to pay Big Daddy all of the revenues it
generated from the offending games. In its view, that rendered the customers’ identities moot. In
addition, the nature of its business means that Leja itself is the end-user—not the taverns and
restaurants. They merely agree to allow Leja to place its games in their facilities. Given that Leja
is a competitor of Big Daddy, Leja argues that Big Daddy’s real purpose in seeking customer
identities is to damage Leja’s relationships with its customers and harm its business.
But Big Daddy argues Leja is not the only end user of the infringing products. The taverns
and restaurants all derived funds from them when they were paid by Leja for the privilege of placing
them in their facilities. And their use of the infringing products possibly harmed Big Daddy’s
business in other ways. Thus, Big Daddy states that one of the aims of the present lawsuit is to
identify those end-users and name them as defendants. It cannot do this without Leja’s help.
I am satisfied that in light of the breadth of allowable discovery in civil cases, the motion
to compel should be granted. Leja’s concerns are acute and understandable, but having violated the
Plaintiff’s copyright (albeit unwittingly, perhaps) it cannot act as a shield to insulate other potential
violators. Moreover, discovery of customer information is commonplace in civil litigation and can
aid the plaintiff in verifying damages. Finally, a victim of infringement is entitled to learn the extent
of the infringement and the mechanisms and relationships through which it occurred, even if the
damages might be slight. For example, even if it does not sue the identified facilities, an
infringement plaintiff might want to communicate with them to educate them as to the nature of its
2
intellectual property in an effort to prevent unintentional infringement in the future. In short, the
information sought could lead to relevant information about other possible defendants, as well as
Plaintiff’s own damages. The motion to compel is therefore GRANTED. Leja should identify the
customers it sold the infringing games to and provide non-redacted documentation of those
relationships. Big Daddy’s request for costs and attorneys fees is denied, however. Given the
Leja’s argument against disclosure and the lack of clear authority on the issue, I find its position
substantially justified.
SO ORDERED this
22nd
day of May, 2014.
s/ William C. Griesbach
William C. Griesbach, Chief Judge
United States District Court
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?