Om Records, LLC v. OM Developpement, SAS

Background

Om Records alleges trademark infringement, unfair competition, and interference with economic relations involving the alleged use of the OM Records trademark in a venture that ended in December 2022. Judge White had previously allowed limited jurisdictional discovery while personal-jurisdiction motions by the French defendants remained pending. The discovery was limited to information that could bear on whether those defendants targeted California or the United States.

Disputes involving the OM Defendants

Om Records sought to add Jacques-Henri Eyraud and Frank McCourt as custodians for document searches. The court denied that request because Om Records had not shown that either person was likely to possess relevant evidence that would not be found through the three employee custodians already identified by the OM Defendants. The court also noted that Om Records had not addressed the defendants’ arguments concerning burden and proportionality.

The court denied Om Records’ request to begin the searches before January 1, 2020. It found that the proposed earlier date rested on speculation and that Om Records could later revisit the issue if it identified a concrete factual reason why the January 1, 2020 starting point was too restrictive.

The court denied Om Records’ generalized request to compel amended responses to its document requests. Om Records did not identify specific requests and responses or explain why particular materials were relevant and proportionate. The court also denied the request to require the OM Defendants and K&G Law, LLP, to produce subpoenaed documents and privilege logs within 15 days. The court found that Om Records had not provided enough information about the subpoena, the requested documents, their relevance, proportionality, or where compliance was required.

Disputes involving the BMG Defendants

The BMG Defendants argued that BMG Rights Management, LLC, should be excluded from the jurisdictional-discovery process. The court denied that request, while emphasizing that discovery involving BMG U.S. could not exceed the limits of Judge White’s earlier order.

The court granted Om Records’ request to use John Loeffler and David Hirshland as custodians for document searches. It also granted, subject to the stated limitations, Om Records’ request concerning Sylvain Gazaignes and Emilie Hauck. The permitted discovery was limited to information potentially showing that a jurisdictionally significant action by a BMG U.S. officer or executive could be attributed to BMG U.S., and information that could show BMG U.S. was an alter ego of BMG France. An alter ego is a legal theory treating one entity as sufficiently controlled by another that the entities may be treated as the same for the issue at hand.

The court granted the BMG Defendants’ request to prevent Om Records from taking Hirshland’s deposition at that time, finding that document discovery was sufficient and that Om Records had not shown why a deposition was necessary. The court also granted in part the BMG Defendants’ request to limit discovery to the document categories listed in their Exhibit G.

Disposition

The court stated that Om Records’ requests were granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, the requests concerning the OM Defendants’ proposed additional custodians, an earlier search period, generalized document-request enforcement, and the K&G Law subpoena were denied. The requests concerning the BMG custodians were granted, the request to exclude BMG U.S. was denied, the request concerning Hirshland’s deposition was granted in favor of the BMG Defendants, and the BMG Defendants’ request to limit document categories was granted in part. The parties were ordered to meet and confer meaningfully before presenting any future discovery disputes.