Dish Network LLC. v. Jadoo TV, Inc.
- Charles Breyer
- 3:20-cv-01891
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 8
In Dish Network L.L.C. v. Jadoo TV, Inc., Judge Beeler ordered discovery, required two depositions, and denied sanctions in a copyright case.
Dish Network L.L.C. and the defendants in the copyright-infringement action, including Jadoo TV, Inc., Sonya Sohail, and Sadia Sohail.
What happened
In Dish Network L.L.C. v. Jadoo TV, Inc., Dish asked the court to resolve five discovery disputes in its copyright-infringement lawsuit. The defendants opposed the requests and said the discovery letter was premature because they were willing to keep discussing the issues.
The court ordered the defendants to produce attorney communications about their response to the alleged infringement or agree not to use those communications at trial to support a good-faith-compliance defense. It also ordered production of information about post-infringement revenues, costs, profits, and payments to Sohail family members and businesses. Sonya Sohail and Sadia Sohail were ordered to sit for depositions.
Judge Laurel Beeler denied Dish’s request for monetary sanctions because the defendants appeared willing to continue meeting and conferring in good faith when the discovery letter was filed. The order resolved discovery issues and did not decide the underlying copyright-infringement claims.
The detailed version
- Dish Network LLC. v. Jadoo TV, Inc. · No. 3:20-cv-01891
- Charles Breyer
- Nov. 10, 2022
Background
Dish Network LLC raised five issues in a discovery letter in its copyright-infringement action against Jadoo TV, Inc., and other defendants:
- Whether the defendants waived attorney-client privilege by attempting to show good-faith compliance with copyright law.
- Whether the defendants had to produce documents about costs and revenues from the period after the alleged infringement stopped.
- Whether the defendants had to produce former Jadoo TV chief operating officer Sadia Sohail for a deposition.
- Whether the defendants had to produce former Jadoo TV general counsel Sonya Sohail for a deposition.
- Whether the defendants had to pay Dish’s costs and fees for the discovery letter.
The defendants resisted each request and generally argued that the discovery letter was premature because they were still willing to meet and confer.
Attorney-Client Privilege
The defendants argued that they had not raised an advice-of-counsel defense and therefore had not waived attorney-client privilege. The court explained that the key question was whether the defendants intended to preserve the option of using communications with their attorneys to show that they acted in good faith or lacked willfulness.
The court held that attempting to establish good-faith compliance with copyright law could put attorney communications at issue. A party cannot use attorney-client privilege both as a shield against discovery and as a sword by using privileged communications to support its defense. The defendants therefore had two options: produce communications with their attorneys concerning their response to the alleged infringement, or stipulate that they would not introduce those communications at trial to support a good-faith-compliance defense.
Documents
The defendants had resisted producing data about revenues and costs from after the alleged infringement ended. The court ordered production of that information, reasoning that comparing figures from the infringing and non-infringing periods could help determine which profits were attributable to the alleged infringement and which were attributable to other activity.
The court also ordered the defendants to produce information concerning payments to Sohail family members and family businesses. It found that the information was relevant to establishing the defendants’ profits and responding to a possible argument that certain costs were deductible.
Depositions
The court ordered Sonya Sohail and Sadia Sohail to sit for depositions. The court found that both witnesses likely had relevant information and that the defendants had not identified health, travel, or other issues making the depositions unusually burdensome.
The court rejected the defendants’ proposed alternative of having one witness sign a declaration stating that she lacked relevant information. It explained that a declaration could not replace a deposition because the opposing party would not have the same opportunity to test the statement through discovery.
Sanctions and Disposition
Dish requested sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(A) and Local Rule 37-4. Judge Laurel Beeler denied the request. Although the discovery requests were granted, the court concluded that sanctions were unwarranted because the defendants appeared willing to continue meeting and conferring in good faith when the discovery letter was filed.
The order required production of the specified attorney communications or the agreed limitation on their use; required production of post-infringement profits, revenues, costs, and payments to Sohail family members and businesses; required Sonya Sohail and Sadia Sohail to sit for depositions; and denied Dish’s request for monetary sanctions.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.