Brandon v. NPG Records, Inc.

Background

Plaintiff James Brandon’s counsel submitted a letter asking the court to order Shelton Jackson “Spike” Lee, Forty Acres and A Mule Musicworks, Inc., Forty Acres and A Mule Filmworks, Inc. (collectively, the “Lee Parties”), and Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation (“Fox Film”) to provide substantive responses to jurisdictional discovery requests. The letter also sought an extension of the deadline for completing jurisdictional discovery and sanctions for the alleged failure to respond.

The discovery concerned the relationship between the Lee Parties, Fox Film, and the “Prince Parties”—Prince Rogers Nelson, NPG Music Publishing, LLC, and NPG Records, Inc.—in connection with the music “Girl 6.” Brandon’s counsel stated that the information could bear on whether the Prince Parties had directed activities toward New York and whether Brandon’s alleged injuries arose from or related to those activities. The court had previously approved jurisdictional discovery, including discovery directed to the Lee Parties and Fox Film.

Parties’ Positions

According to the letter, the Lee Parties and Fox Film responded to Brandon’s requests with objections but no substantive responses. Their stated objections included the statute of limitations, burdensomeness, and the argument that they had not themselves asserted a lack of personal jurisdiction. Brandon argued that the requests were narrowly focused, that the requested information was relevant, and that the statute of limitations did not bar discovery of older information. He also argued that the Lee Parties and Fox Film had failed to respond in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(d)(1)(A) and had not filed a motion for a protective order.

The letter stated that the Prince Parties did not oppose extending the jurisdictional-discovery period, while the Lee Parties and Fox Film opposed the extension. The original deadline was January 3, 2020, and Brandon requested an extension to February 20, 2020.

Ruling

The court’s order stated: “Application denied without prejudice.” The court added that counsel could renew the request in accordance with the procedures for requesting a pre-motion conference concerning discovery under Individual Rule 2.C.11. “Without prejudice” means the order did not bar counsel from renewing the request through those procedures. Judge Gregory H. Woods entered the order on January 2, 2020.

Classification

This is a procedural order because it addressed a discovery-related application and did not decide the underlying copyright or personal-jurisdiction issues.