Sony Music Entertainment v. Triller, Inc.
- P. Castel
- 1:22-cv-07380
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 13
In Sony Music Entertainment v. Triller, Inc., Judge Castel is addressed in a letter requesting sanctions; the submitted text contains no ruling.
The submitted filing concerns Sony Music and the other named plaintiffs, Triller, Inc., and the handling of discovery in their lawsuit; no court ruling affecting them appears in the text.
What happened
The submitted text concerns Sony Music Entertainment and other plaintiffs’ lawsuit against Triller, Inc. The plaintiffs allege that Triller failed to make required payments under a license agreement and continued using Sony Music’s sound recordings after the license ended.
Sony Music asked the court to impose case-ending sanctions because Triller allegedly missed discovery deadlines and failed to produce required documents. The requested relief included default judgment, striking Triller’s answer, or comparable sanctions, along with payment of Sony Music’s reasonable expenses and attorney fees.
The text is a letter from the plaintiffs’ attorneys dated March 27, 2023, not a court order. Judge P. Kevin Castel’s ruling is not included, so the submitted material does not show whether the requests were granted or denied.
The detailed version
- Sony Music Entertainment v. Triller, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-07380
- P. Castel
- Mar. 28, 2023
Nature of the Document
The submitted material is a March 27, 2023 letter from attorneys for Sony Music Entertainment, Sony Music Entertainment US Latin LLC, Arista Records LLC, Provident Label Group LLC, Records Label, LLC, and Zomba Recording LLC. It asks the court to sanction Triller, Inc. The material does not contain a judicial ruling or disposition.
Background
The plaintiffs state that their lawsuit asserts breach-of-contract and copyright-infringement claims. They say Triller failed to make millions of dollars in payments required by a license agreement, after which Sony Music terminated the agreement. The plaintiffs further allege that Triller continued making Sony Music sound recordings available through its app after the license ended.
Discovery Dispute
The plaintiffs state that the court ordered Triller to produce all non-privileged, non-work-product documents responsive to the plaintiffs’ first document request by March 21, 2023, and warned that failure to comply would result in case-ending sanctions. According to the letter, Triller produced no documents by that deadline, then produced 51 documents totaling 427 pages on March 22. The plaintiffs contend that the production omitted financial records, usage data, policies, reports, and other requested materials.
The plaintiffs also describe earlier missed deadlines and say Triller did not provide an investor capitalization chart or identify its corporate deposition witnesses. They argue that the incomplete production harmed their ability to take depositions and develop claims before discovery was scheduled to close.
Relief Requested
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b) and the court’s inherent authority, the plaintiffs requested default judgment against Triller, striking Triller’s answer, or other case-ending relief resulting in judgment for Sony Music on all claims. They also requested reasonable expenses, including attorney fees, under Rule 37(c).
Disposition
No disposition appears in the submitted text. The letter records the plaintiffs’ requests and allegations but does not state that Judge P. Kevin Castel granted, denied, or otherwise ruled on them.
Read the full 13-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.