Bernstein v. Cengage Learning, Inc.

Background

Cengage Learning, Inc. filed a letter-motion requesting a pre-motion conference under the court’s local rules and practice rules. Cengage said it anticipated filing a motion to compel, meaning a request for an order requiring the plaintiffs to provide information, concerning the plaintiffs’ theory and calculation of damages.

According to Cengage’s letter, the plaintiffs’ initial disclosures stated generally that their damages included the difference between the royalties Cengage had paid and the royalties the plaintiffs believed Cengage should have paid under the publishing agreements. Cengage argued that the disclosures did not provide a computation for each damages category, an explanation of the damages theory, or supporting documents. Cengage focused particularly on alleged royalty underpayments involving Cengage Unlimited, where royalties were based on subscriptions rather than being directly attributable to individual works.

Cengage said it had requested supplemental disclosures beginning in January 2022 and had repeated the request several times. Cengage stated that the plaintiffs indicated they would provide more detail but did not do so. Cengage also said that fact discovery and depositions were underway or approaching, and that the lack of damages information interfered with its ability to conduct discovery and oppose class certification.

Ruling

The court granted Cengage’s letter-motion for a pre-motion conference. It scheduled a telephone conference for May 12, 2022, at 4:00 p.m., and directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion at ECF No. 135.

The order did not grant or deny a motion to compel because Cengage had not yet filed that anticipated motion. It also did not decide the correct damages calculation or resolve the parties’ underlying dispute. The order was signed by Judge Sarah L. Cave as a United States Magistrate Judge.