Stingray Music USA, Inc. v. uCast LLC
- Alvin Hellerstein
- 1:19-cv-07473
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Stingray Music USA v. uCast, Judge Hellerstein entered a $10,000 discovery-sanctions judgment against uCast and kept the merits case open.
Stingray received a $10,000 enforceable sanctions judgment against uCast, while the underlying merits case remained open; uCast also faced continued discovery obligations and the court’s warning about possible contempt for nonpayment.
What happened
In Stingray Music USA, Inc. v. uCast LLC, Stingray asked the court to sanction uCast for repeatedly failing to follow discovery orders. The opinion says uCast had not paid an earlier $5,000 sanction and had still not adequately produced required evidence and witnesses.
The court ordered another $5,000 payment, bringing the total to $10,000. Stingray could immediately enforce the amount against uCast’s assets as a judgment. Discovery was closed subject to a limited procedure for identifying and producing a corporate witness, and the underlying case would continue.
Judge Hellerstein entered judgment for Stingray and against uCast for $10,000, terminated the sanctions motion, and allowed immediate enforcement. The sanctions judgment was separate from the unresolved merits of the case.
The detailed version
- Stingray Music USA, Inc. v. uCast LLC · No. 1:19-cv-07473
- Alvin Hellerstein
- May 14, 2020
Background
Stingray Music USA, Inc. moved for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 based on uCast LLC’s repeated failures to comply with discovery orders. The opinion states that an earlier order required uCast to pay Stingray $5,000 for ongoing discovery noncompliance within two weeks. uCast had not paid that amount. Stingray also reported that uCast’s production of required evidence and witnesses remained inadequate.
Court’s Analysis
The court found uCast’s conduct unacceptable and sanctionable. It explained that Rule 37 permits an award of the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused by a party’s failure to obey a discovery order. The court awarded Stingray another $5,000 because uCast’s continued noncompliance forced Stingray to repeatedly seek discovery, encounter resistance, and return to court.
To prevent another failure to pay, the court ruled that its new order and the prior $5,000 order— totaling $10,000—were immediately subject to execution by Stingray. The court stated that Stingray could enforce both orders against uCast’s assets as final judgments and cautioned that failure to comply with monetary sanctions could lead to contempt and imprisonment pending compliance.
Discovery and Disposition
The court stated that discovery was closed, subject to the procedure in its prior order. Under that procedure, Stingray had one week to identify factual propositions it wished to prove through a corporate witness under Rule 30(b)(6), and uCast had three weeks after Stingray’s submission either to produce a suitable witness or inform the court that none existed. If no suitable witness existed, the identified matters would be treated as proven unless squarely contradicted by documentary evidence in the record.
Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein entered judgment on Stingray’s motions for discovery sanctions in favor of Stingray and against uCast for $10,000. The Clerk was directed to terminate the open sanctions motion and enter the judgment, which could be executed immediately under the cited Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The judgment was severable from the underlying merits litigation, and the case remained open for further proceedings on the merits.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.