Epidemic Sound, AB v. Meta Platforms, Inc.
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:22-cv-04223
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Epidemic Sound v. Meta, Judge Corley granted in part Meta’s discovery motion, denied other requests, and granted Epidemic’s sealing request.
Epidemic Sound, AB must provide specified testimony and, if not already produced, Meta-specific Pex data or documents. Meta Platforms, Inc. may obtain that discovery but may not obtain the requested aggregate Pex data or later Pex market studies. The identified materials will remain sealed.
What happened
Epidemic Sound, AB and Meta Platforms, Inc. submitted a joint letter about discovery concerning Epidemic’s monitoring and enforcement efforts. The dispute involved testimony from an Epidemic witness, documents from Pexeso, Inc., later Pexeso market-share reports, and sealing certain materials.
The court ordered Epidemic to provide a company witness to testify about monitoring on YouTube and TikTok. It also required production of any Pex-generated data or documents specifically concerning Meta’s platforms that had not already been produced, but denied Meta’s request for other aggregate Pex data. The court denied Meta’s request for later Pex market studies because Pexeso was retained as a consulting expert for trial preparation and Meta had not shown exceptional circumstances.
Judge Jacquelyn Scott Corley granted Epidemic’s request to seal the identified documents and document portions based on confidential business information and good cause. The order disposed of Docket Nos. 250 and 251.
The detailed version
- Epidemic Sound, AB v. Meta Platforms, Inc. · No. 3:22-cv-04223
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Mar. 20, 2025
Background
The court addressed a discovery-dispute joint letter concerning Epidemic Sound, AB’s monitoring and enforcement efforts. Meta Platforms, Inc. sought testimony and documents relating to how Epidemic monitors the use of its works on digital platforms other than Meta’s services. Meta also sought documents connected with Pexeso, Inc. (Pex), including later market-share reports. Separately, Meta filed an administrative motion concerning whether certain materials should be sealed.
30(b)(6) Testimony
The court granted in part Meta’s motion to compel a deposition of an Epidemic witness designated to testify for the company. Epidemic must produce a witness to testify about its monitoring of YouTube and TikTok. The court found that testimony relevant to Epidemic’s claim that it was impossible to demand removal of infringing works and that YouTube and TikTok were comparable to Meta’s platforms. Meta had not identified other similar platforms.
Pex Documents
Epidemic represented that it had produced information received from Pex identifying usage on Meta’s platforms. The court ordered Epidemic, to the extent it had not already done so, to produce any Pex-generated data or documents specifically concerning Meta’s platforms. The court otherwise denied Meta’s request because Meta did not persuasively explain how the aggregate data, which could not be analyzed by specific platform, was relevant to a claim or defense.
Pex Market-Share Reports
The court denied Meta’s motion to compel later market-share studies prepared by Pex. Epidemic established that it retained Pex after the complaint was filed to assist with trial preparation and did not expect to call Pex as a trial witness. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4)(D), facts known and opinions held by a non-testifying consulting expert retained for trial preparation generally are protected from discovery. Epidemic met its burden to show that the protection applied, and Meta did not show the exceptional circumstances required to overcome it.
Sealing Request
The court granted Epidemic’s request to seal the documents and portions of documents identified in paragraph 3 of Docket No. 253. Epidemic showed that the materials contained or reflected confidential information about its digital-rights-management efforts, internal business practices, and competitively sensitive information. Because the materials were attached to a discovery motion, the court applied the less demanding good-cause standard for sealing.
Disposition
The court granted in part Meta’s motion concerning the company witness; ordered production of any unproduced Pex-generated Meta-specific data or documents; otherwise denied Meta’s request for aggregate Pex data; denied Meta’s motion to compel later Pex market studies; and granted Epidemic’s sealing request. The order disposed of Docket Nos. 250 and 251.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.