A&E Television Networks, LLC v. Big Fish Entertainment, LLC

Background

Defendants sought an order compelling third-party subpoena recipient Hearst Communications, Inc. to produce documents in the copyright dispute between A&E Television Networks, LLC and Defendants. Hearst opposed the motion. Hearst argued that Defendants served an earlier subpoena requiring compliance in California, received Hearst’s objections to a later subpoena, waited until after fact discovery closed to seek relief, failed to follow the court’s local rules and individual practices, and sought documents imposing an undue burden.

Court’s Analysis

The court found that Hearst did not waive its objections to the subpoena. It also found that the motion did not merit dismissal based on timeliness and excused Defendants’ failure to comply with the court’s local and individual rules in this instance.

The court considered Defendants’ narrowed request for two categories of documents: (1) Hearst board minutes from May 1, 2020, through August 31, 2020, and from May 1, 2022, through August 31, 2022, referring to Live PD or On Patrol: Live; and (2) emails from five specified custodians referring to either program during those same periods. The court concluded that this narrowed request did not impose an undue burden on Hearst, considering the potential relevance and importance of Hearst’s documents to AETN’s decision to cancel Live PD and the request’s limited time periods and number of custodians.

Disposition

Judge Katherine Polk Failla GRANTED Defendants’ request as to the narrowed set of documents and ORDERED Hearst to produce them. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at docket entry 116.