Titus v. UMG Recordings, Inc.
- Rochon
- 1:23-cv-00015
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Titus v. UMG Recordings, Inc., Judge Rochon granted a discovery-conference request and ordered the parties to attend by video.
The plaintiffs, the proposed class, UMG Recordings, Inc., and their counsel were ordered to appear for the discovery conference.
What happened
Titus v. UMG Recordings, Inc. is a proposed class action in which the plaintiffs say UMG breached recording contracts by retaining Spotify stock and paying lower royalties. The plaintiffs also say UMG failed to identify Spotify stock in royalty statements.
The plaintiffs requested a discovery conference because they said UMG refused to clearly state its objections and responses to document requests. UMG’s motion to dismiss was still pending, and the parties had agreed to delay certain discovery activities while discussing discovery planning.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon granted the request for a discovery conference. She ordered the parties to appear by Microsoft Teams on October 25, 2023, at 11:30 a.m.; the order did not itself decide the parties’ underlying discovery dispute or UMG’s pending motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- Titus v. UMG Recordings, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-00015
- Rochon
- Oct. 20, 2023
Order
The court granted the request for a discovery conference. It ordered the parties to appear for a video conference through Microsoft Teams on October 25, 2023, at 11:30 a.m. Counsel were to receive login credentials through the email addresses listed on the docket. The order also provided a public listen-only telephone line.
Background
The attached letter was submitted on behalf of the plaintiffs and the proposed class. It describes claims that UMG Recordings, Inc. breached recording contracts with artists. According to the letter, the contracts assigned copyrights in sound recordings to UMG in exchange for royalty payments and required UMG to account for royalties owed.
The plaintiffs alleged that UMG licensed recordings to Spotify in exchange for Spotify stock and lower cash royalties, retained the stock rather than compensating the artists for its value, and omitted references to the stock from royalty statements. The letter alleged that UMG had retained an estimated $750 million in royalties that should have been paid to artists. These allegations were presented as the claims at issue; the discovery-conference order did not decide their merits.
Discovery dispute
The plaintiffs said UMG had moved to dismiss the case and that the motion remained pending. The parties had agreed to engage in preliminary discovery planning and negotiations while staying document productions, depositions, and third-party discovery. They also agreed to meet and confer about the scope of written discovery before their required planning conference, with the goal of promptly identifying and resolving disputes.
The plaintiffs served requests for production of documents and said UMG refused to memorialize its position on each request. They sought either an order requiring UMG to provide written responses and objections within two weeks or a new date for the initial pretrial conference. The letter argued that the parties could not identify or narrow discovery disputes without knowing what UMG would produce or withhold.
Disposition and scope
Judge Rochon granted only the request for a discovery conference and scheduled the video appearance. The order did not state that UMG had to provide written discovery responses, did not resolve the parties’ dispute about the scope of discovery, and did not rule on UMG’s pending motion to dismiss.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.