Music Royalty Consulting, Inc. v. Reservoir Media Management Inc.

Nature of the Filing

The supplied document is a letter from counsel for plaintiff Music Royalty Consulting, Inc. (MRCI) to Judge Colleen McMahon. MRCI asks for permission to introduce rebuttal expert testimony if the case proceeds to trial and Reservoir Media Management Inc. is permitted to present either of its noticed experts. The document does not include a court ruling or disposition.

Underlying Dispute

According to MRCI’s letter, the case concerns an alleged breach of a publishing agreement involving musical compositions by Scott Storch. The letter states that Storch assigned rights under that agreement to MRCI in 2012, including the right to receive 50% of royalties known as the “writer’s share.” MRCI says Reservoir consented in writing to the assignment but has refused to pay the writer’s share since 2015.

The letter identifies three issues that MRCI says remain for disposition: the effect of Storch’s 2015 bankruptcy and rejection of the publishing agreement on Reservoir’s future obligations; whether MRCI made sufficiently specific written objections to certain royalty accountings; and the remedies available if Reservoir is found liable. These issues are described in MRCI’s submission and are not resolved by the supplied document.

Expert Reports and MRCI’s Position

MRCI challenges two expert reports submitted by Reservoir. It characterizes the report by music-industry lawyer Clark Miller as offering legal conclusions about the publishing agreement, the assignment, and the specificity of MRCI’s objections to royalty statements. MRCI also says portions of that report conflict with testimony from Reservoir’s own witnesses.

MRCI describes economist Barry Massarsky’s report as asserting that Reservoir suffered $1,344,560 in “lost value” damages because Storch no longer delivered musical compositions. MRCI says Reservoir did not identify those damages during fact discovery and that the report cites no supporting evidence produced by the parties. These are MRCI’s arguments, not findings made in an order in the supplied text.

Requested Relief and Applicable Procedure

MRCI states that the scheduling order required it to submit expert reports by March 2, 2021, while Reservoir’s reports were due April 9, 2021, and that the order did not provide for rebuttal expert discovery. MRCI asks either to submit rebuttal testimony after summary judgment and expert-admissibility motions, or alternatively to submit it before the summary-judgment deadline with an extension of that deadline.

The letter cites the federal rule that ordinarily allows disclosures intended solely to contradict or rebut an opposing expert within 30 days after the opposing disclosure. It also states that a scheduling order may be modified with the court’s consent for good cause. MRCI argues that the expert opinions were unexpected, that it would be disadvantaged without a chance to respond, that Reservoir would suffer little prejudice from limited rebuttal discovery, and that no trial date had been set.

Disposition

The supplied text contains no ruling by Judge McMahon. It therefore does not establish whether the request for rebuttal expert testimony was granted, denied, or otherwise resolved.