White v. UMG Recordings, Inc.

Background

Jordan White sued UMG Recordings, Inc. and others under Section 512(f) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, alleging that Defendants knowingly submitted an improper notice asking service providers to remove content related to White’s music. The opinion concerns discovery disputes, not the underlying copyright claim.

Defendants UMG Recordings, Inc. and Jordan Carter, also known as Playboi Carti, asked for $22,073.22 in attorneys’ fees under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5). They sought fees for obtaining a protective order that quashed White’s subpoenas to nonparties, opposing White’s first motion to compel discovery, opposing White’s second motion to compel additional deposition time and sanctions, and preparing the fees motion itself.

The court previously granted Defendants’ motion for a protective order and quashed White’s subpoenas. It found that the subpoenas were untimely, outside the proper scope of discovery, and unreasonably cumulative and duplicative. The court also previously granted in part and denied in part White’s first motion to compel. It allowed limited additional deposition time for Carter but denied requests concerning information about Carter’s song “Right Now” and album “Die Lit” and Carter’s browsing history from 2017 to 2018. The court later denied White’s second motion to compel additional deposition time and his request for sanctions.

Court’s analysis

For the protective-order motion, the court held that Defendants were entitled to reasonable expenses because White’s subpoenas had led to the motion and White had not shown that his conduct was justified. The court rejected White’s argument that Defendants lacked standing, noting that it had already granted the protective order and quashed the subpoenas.

For the first motion to compel, the court awarded Defendants fees only for the issues on which they prevailed. Because the billing records might have included time spent on the deposition issue on which White partly prevailed, the court reduced the requested $5,890.50 by ten percent, awarding $5,301.45.

For the second motion to compel, the court awarded the requested $9,616.47. The court relied in part on White’s failure to attach the deposition transcript as previously ordered and its conclusion, after reviewing the transcript, that the assertions supporting a second deposition were contradicted by the record.

The court declined to award fees for preparing the attorneys’ fees motion itself. It explained that the applicable discovery rule did not provide for those additional fees and cited the parties’ history of making discovery disputes unnecessarily extensive.

Disposition

The court’s motion for attorneys’ fees was GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Defendants were awarded a total of $21,484.17: $6,566.25 for the protective-order motion, $5,301.45 for opposing the first motion to compel, and $9,616.47 for opposing the second motion to compel. The motion was denied as to fees incurred in briefing the fees motion. The Clerk of Court was directed to close ECF 162.

The opinion was signed by Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang.