flo & eddie - cd ca - third 26(f) joint report.pdf

7/23/2019 Flo & Eddie - CD Ca - third 26(f) joint report.pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/flo-eddie-cd-ca-third-26f-joint-reportpdf 1/25

RULE 26(F) JOINT REPORT

CASE NO. 13-CV-5693 PSG (RZX)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

HENRY GRADSTEIN S.B. #[email protected]

MARYANN R. MARZANO (S.B. #96867)[email protected]

HARVEY GELLER (S.B. #123107)[email protected]

GRADSTEIN & MARZANO, P.C.6310 San Vicente Blvd., Suite 510Los Angeles, CA 90048Telephone: (310) 776-3100Facsimile: (323) 931-4990

Attorneys for PlaintiffFlo & Eddie, Inc.

DANIEL M. PETROCELLI (S.B. #97802)[email protected]

DAVID MARROSO (S.B. #211655)[email protected]

DREW E. BREUDER (S.B. #198466)[email protected]

CASSANDRA L. SETO (S.B. #246608)[email protected]

O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 700Los Angeles, CA 90067-6035Telephone: (310) 553-6700Facsimile: (310) 246-6779

Attorneys for DefendantSirius XM Radio Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FLO & EDDIE, INC., a Ca orn acorporation, individually and on behalfof all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

SIRIUS XM RADIO INC., a Delawarecorporation, and DOES 1 through 10,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-CV-5693 PSG RZx

PARTIES’ THIRDSUPPLEMENTAL RULE 26(F)JOINT CASE MANAGEMENTSTATEMENT

Hon. Philip S. Gutierrez

Hearing Date: December 21, 2015Hearing Time: 2:30 p.m.Courtroom: 880

Case 2:13-cv-05693-PSG-RZ Document 266 Filed 12/14/15 of 25 Page ID #:6706



RULE 26(F) JOINT REPORT


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) and the Court’s November

16, 2015 order, Dkt. 262, plaintiff Flo & Eddie, Inc. (“Flo & Eddie”) and defendant

Sirius XM Radio Inc. (“Sirius XM”), by and through their respective counsel of

record, respectfully submit this Third Supplemental Rule 26(f) Joint Case

Management Statement following a conference of counsel on November 30, 2015.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On August 1, 2013, Flo & Eddie filed suit against Sirius XM in Los Angeles

Superior Court, alleging on behalf of itself and a putative class of owners of pre-

1972 recordings (i.e., recordings fixed prior to February 15, 1972) that Sirius XM,

without a license or authorization, was reproducing, distributing, and performing

those recordings as part of its satellite and internet radio services. Flo & Eddie

alleged claims for violation of Cal. Civ. Code § 980(a)(2), misappropriation, unfair

competition under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 and common law, and

conversion, and sought damages, restitution, and injunctive relief on behalf of itself

and the putative class.

After removing the case to federal court on August 8, 2013, Sirius XM filed

motions in October 2013 to transfer venue to New York and stay the case pending

resolution of its transfer request, both of which the Court denied on December 3,

2013. On February 12, 2014, Sirius XM filed a motion to strike Flo & Eddie’s

class action allegations, which the Court denied on March 18, 2014. Sirius XM

requested bifurcation of discovery to allow for early summary judgment on

liability, which the Court granted on March 25, 2014, deferring damages and class

certification discovery and ordering that liability discovery be completed by July

14, 2014.

On June 9, 2014, Flo & Eddie filed a motion for summary judgment as to

liability on all causes of action. On September 22, 2014, the Court granted that

motion in part, affirming liability for public performance but finding triable issues

of fact with respect to reproduction. Sirius XM thereafter filed motions to either




- 2 -RULE 26(F) JOINT REPORT


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

certify it for interlocutory appeal or reconsider the summary judgment order, which

the Court respectively denied on November 20, 2014 and February 19, 2015.

On October 21, 2014, the Court issued a scheduling order requiring that class

certification and damages discovery be completed by February 27, 2015, and that

Flo & Eddie file its motion for class certification by March 16, 2015. On March

16, 2015, Flo & Eddie filed its motion for class certification, which the Court

granted on May 27, 2015.

On June 2, 2015, Sirius XM filed an ex parte application to stay this action

pending resolution of its Rule 23(f) petition to the Ninth Circuit challenging the

class certification order, or in the alternative, to modify the scheduling order to

allow sufficient time for the class notice and opt-out process as well as limited post-

certification discovery. Dkt. 228. Flo & Eddie opposed Sirius XM’s application,

but agreed that some modification of the scheduling order was necessary to allow

sufficient time for the class notice and opt-out process. Dkt. 230.

On June 8, 2015, the Court granted Sirius XM’s application to stay, vacating

all pre-trial and trial dates and issuing a stay pending resolution of Sirius XM’s

Rule 23(f) petition. Dkt. 237. On June 10, 2015, Sirius XM filed its Rule 23(f)

petition. On August 10, 2015, the Ninth Circuit denied Sirius XM’s Rule 23(f)

petition. On August 24, 2015, Sirius XM filed a petition for rehearing or

reconsideration en banc with the Ninth Circuit. On September 1, 2015, the Court

issued an order setting a scheduling conference for October 5, 2015. On September

4, 2015, Sirius XM requested that the Court extend its stay of the current

proceedings until resolution of its en banc petition, which the Court granted on

September 8, 2015. On November 10, 2015, the Ninth Circuit denied Sirius XM’s

en banc petition.

On November 25, 2015, Sirius XM filed a motion to continue the stay issued

on June 8, 2015 pending resolution of the appeal filed by Pandora Media, Inc.

(“Pandora”) of this Court’s February 23, 2015 order denying its anti-SLAPP






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

motion. Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Pandora Media, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70551

(C.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2015). That motion is set for hearing on January 25, 2016.

II.

SETTLEMENT

The parties participated in a private mediation on June 12, 2015 and a

settlement conference with the Eleventh Circuit’s Mediation Center on October 6,

2015, neither of which resulted in a resolution of the parties’ dispute. The parties

disagree as to whether additional settlement discussions would be productive at this

time.

A. Flo & Eddie’s Position

Flo & Eddie believes that the pending stay greatly impacted Sirius XM’s

motivation to address this case as a certified class action. Separate and apart from

its settlement with the major record companies on June 17, 2015, Sirius XM has

used the stay as a cover in order to attempt to settle with class members

individually rather than as a group. It is for this reason that the prior attempts at

settlement (both of which occurred during the pendency of the stay) were not

successful. Accordingly, Flo & Eddie believes that once the stay is lifted and

proper discovery is completed of Sirius XM’s improper settlement activities and

conduct during the stay, then a settlement conference before a Magistrate Judge in

the Central District may prove effective.

B. Sirius XM’s Position

Sirius XM does not believe that further settlement discussions would be

productive at this time, given that the parties’ private mediation in June 2015 and

Eleventh Circuit settlement conference in October 2015 were both unsuccessful.

Given the pending appellate proceedings in the Second, Ninth, and Eleventh

Circuits, and the impending February 2, 2016 oral argument in the Second Circuit,

appellate guidance on the performance right and Commerce Clause issues, which

will be extremely helpful in informing the parties on their respective positions, is






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

forthcoming. See Dkt. 264 at 3-5. Sirius XM disagrees with Flo & Eddie’s

statements above, which are factually and legally inaccurate.1

III.

DISCOVERY

According to the Court’s March 25, 2014 and October 21, 2014 scheduling

orders, the cut-off for liability discovery passed on July 14, 2014, the cut-off for

class certification and damages discovery passed on February 27, 2015, and the cut-

off for expert discovery passed on April 30, 2015. Dkt. 58; Dkt. 126. The parties

disagree as to whether and what additional discovery is warranted.

A. Flo & Eddie’s Position

1.

Flo & Eddie is Entitled To Further Discovery.

Immediately upon the May 27, 2015 certification of the class, Sirius XM

sought and received a stay of this action (which has now been in effect for over

seven months) in order to petition the Ninth Circuit under Rule 23(f) for permission

to pursue an interlocutory appeal of the class certification order. That stay was

further extended when Sirius XM sought en banc review of the Ninth Circuit’s one

sentence discretionary refusal to allow that appeal. During the stay, Sirius XM has

not only continued to infringe the pre-1972 recordings owned by the class (for

which only it possesses the data that is necessary to calculate the damages resulting

from that infringement) but has also attempted to use the stay to undermine the

1 After counsel for the parties participated in a meet and confer conference call on

November 30, 2015, Sirius XM circulated a draft of this joint statement containing background and Sirius XM’s positions to Flo & Eddie on December 7, 2015. Sirius

XM did not receive Flo & Eddie’s positions and revisions—which amounted totwelve additional pages—until December 11, 2015, one business day before this joint statement was due. Flo & Eddie’s position contains extensive legal arguments

that are both inappropriate for a Rule 26(f) joint report and exceed the parties’discussions during the November 30, 2015 conference. Sirius XM has not had a

full opportunity to respond to the entirety of Flo & Eddie’s arguments and thereforerequests complete briefing and reserves the right to respond further to the

arguments made in this joint report.






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

certified class by negotiating individual settlements of the claims in this action with

class members (even beyond the major record companies) in order to procure their

opt-out once the stay is lifted.

In having these discussions and in consummating these settlements, Sirius

XM ignored the law, as well as the role of class counsel and the Court. Once the

class was certified, Sirius XM, its executives, and its lawyers ceased to be permitted

to have direct communications with class members regarding this litigation.

Kleiner v. First Nat’l Bank of Atlanta, 751 F.2d 1193, 1206-07 (11th Cir. 1985);

Resnick v. American Dental Assn., 95 F.R.D. 372, 378-79 (N.D. Ill. 1982):

Hernandez v. Vitamin Shoppe Industries Inc., 174 Cal. App. 4th 1441, 1459-60

(2009). Sirius XM’s settlement communications and the agreements they procured

through those communications raise a host of other legal and procedural issues that

require discovery in order to determine the need for, and scope of, curative

measures and remedies.

In light of what has transpired over the last seven months and in order to

update the damages calculations in this case, with the permission of the Court, Flo

& Eddie intends to pursue discovery (both by requiring supplementation of prior

discovery responses pursuant to Rule 26(e)2 and by serving new discovery where

appropriate) with respect to the following categories:

1. Financial and usage information regarding Sirius XM’s exploitation of

pre-1972 recordings in California from and after Sirius XM’s last

supplementation of this information. This discovery is necessary to bring

the damages calculation up to date with actual rather than estimated data.

2.

Agreements and licenses entered into by Sirius XM from and after May

2 SiriusXM’s obligation to supplement its prior responses continues automatically

beyond the prior discovery cut-off date. Woods v. Google, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist.LEXIS 44894, *12-13 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2014); Villescas v. Dotson, 2015 U.S.

Dist. LEXIS 68641, *4 n.1 (E.D. Cal. May 27, 2015).






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

27, 2015 that grant it any rights to use or exploit pre-1972 recordings.

This discovery is necessary with respect to the damages calculation as

well as to determine the extent to which Sirius XM’s actions have been

improper and affected the current composition of the class.

3. The identification of pre-1972 recordings for which Sirius XM claims that

it possesses the right to use or exploit in California. Sirius XM claims to

have negotiated rights – either by license or release – to a significant

number of pre-1972 recordings. An identification of those recordings (as

well as who owns them) by Sirius XM is necessary if Sirius XM intends

to claim that those recordings are no longer part of this litigation.

4.

From and after May 27, 2015, communications between Sirius XM and

members of the class concerning this litigation, settlement of the claims in

this litigation, and licensing of pre-1972 recordings. This discovery is

necessary to determine the scope and effect of Sirius XM’s improper

communications and the extent to which Sirius XM has attempted to

mislead or coerce class members into opting out of the certified class, as

such activities constitute clear harm to the parties and the processes of the

court. Zarate v. Younglove, 86 F.R.D. 80, 101 (C.D. Cal. 1980). Sirius

XM’s claims of mediation privilege with respect to some of those

communications are premature and, in any event, overbroad and not a

basis to foreclose this discovery.

Flo & Eddie estimates that this discovery can be completed within ninety

days, provided that any necessary resolution of discovery disputes including

motions to compel are not included within that time period.

2. Sirius XM Is Not Entitled To The Post-CertificationDiscovery It Seeks.

Although Sirius XM strains to justify the two bases upon which it claims

entitlement to post-certification discovery, in each case, it is merely asking this






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Court for a “do over” to correct previous tactical decisions it made.

First, Sirius XM argues that it requires discovery from “a sampling of absent

class members” in order to resurrect various affirmative defenses (authorization,

waiver, estoppel, and laches) that it either lost on summary judgment or testified

away in depositions. Indeed, Sirius XM failed to raise authorization, waiver, or

estoppel in opposing Flo & Eddie’s motion for summary judgment, and the Court

definitively ruled that laches “is unavailable to Sirius XM in this action.” (Dkt. 117

p. 15) Sirius XM fared no better when it attempted to belatedly raise its waived

defenses while opposing class certification: the Court dismissed Sirius XM’s

authorization and estoppel defenses based upon Sirius XM’s binding admissions

“that its decision to perform pre-1972 recordings without first seeking licenses or

paying royalties was based on its interpretation of the applicable law… not an

understanding that owners had already impliedly authorized performance.” (Dkt.

225, pp. 18-19) These admissions also foreclose any discovery regarding waiver.

Moreover, if Sirius XM had actually relied on any alleged waivers, it most certainly

would already have that information, obviating the need for discovery.

Second, Sirius XM argues that it requires discovery to verify that various

commercial services that collect ownership information for pre-1972 recordings

“actually possess complete and accurate ownership information.” The time for

Sirius XM to pursue this inquiry was before class certification discovery cut-off on

February 27, 2015. However, as Flo & Eddie explained when Sirius XM first tried

to reopen this issue in May 2015 (Dkt. 215), Sirius XM made the strategic decision

not to pursue discovery regarding the identification of owners of pre-1972

recordings because it wanted to blind itself to that knowledge so that it could persist

in arguing that there was no reliable method available for ascertaining these owners

Obviously, pursuing discovery on that issue prior to class certification had the very

real potential to undermine Sirius XM’s representations, and so it forfeited the

opportunity in a gambit to defeat class certification. Its subsequent failure to defeat






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

certification does not constitute good cause to reopen closed discovery that Sirius

XM purposely chose not to pursue when it actually had the opportunity.

Ultimately, neither of Sirius XM’s requests satisfy the requirements

justifying its request to conduct post-certification discovery. Sirius XM’s intent to

depose absent class members is solely intended to prop up affirmative defenses that

would remove the deponents from the class definition and therefore “reduce the

size of the class,” violating the first factor of the Court’s inquiry. McPhail v. First

Command Fin. Planning, Inc., 251 F.R.D. 514, 517 (S.D. Cal. 2008). Additionally,

Sirius XM has failed to establish that any of the foregoing discovery is necessary,

since its asserted defenses are categorically unavailable to it and ownership is not

an issue in this case unless and until competing claims arise.3 Finally, it is beyond

cavil that Sirius XM would know if it possessed any of the affirmative defenses it

seeks to depose absent class members over. Indeed, how could Sirius XM rely on a

waiver, estoppel, authorization, or license that it knew nothing about? Sirius XM

makes no effort to explain because in no sense are these serious inquiries. They are

merely an attempt to harass and intimidate members of the certified class.4

3 Indeed, there is no real dispute that Sirius XM owns none of the pre-1972

recordings it exploits and relied on no authorizations in deciding to exploit them,

rendering every single exploitation infringing as a matter of law. Thus, no amount

of discovery as to ownership issues can possibly dispel its liability. Moreover, because Sirius XM is only liable for the number of infringing acts it committed,

regardless of how many parties claim the resulting damages, there is no risk ofoverclaiming or exposure to excessive damages to concern Sirius XM.

4 Although Sirius XM makes a passing reference to a third basis for discovery –

“issues related to Flo & Eddie’s disgorgement theory” – it never explain who this

discovery would be directed at, what it would entail, why it is necessary, or evenhow it would be relevant given that Flo & Eddie seeks damages as defined by the

California Court of Appeals, not disgorgement. (Dkt. 230, pp. 13-14)






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

B. Sirius XM’s Position

1. Sirius XM Is Entitled To Post-Certification Discovery.

As Sirius XM explained in the prior briefing on its ex parte application to

stay or modify the scheduling order, see Dkt. 232 at 2-7; Dkt. 264 at 7-9, Sirius XM

intends to seek limited post-certification discovery from a sampling of absent class

members and from third parties SoundExchange, Music Reports, Inc. (“MRI”), and

Evan M. Greenspan, Inc. (“Greenspan”). Sirius XM is prepared to discuss its

proposed discovery plan at the December 21, 2015 status conference or in briefing,

and summarizes it only briefly here.

Sirius XM’s initial proposal is to select 15-20 absent class members from

SoundExchange’s list of 273 purported owners of pre-1972 recordings, which Flo

& Eddie previously presented to the Court as an accurate but non-exhaustive list of

class members. Dkt. 182; Dkt. 186 ¶¶ 2-6. Sirius XM would depose the selected

class members about their personal knowledge on limited topics, such as their

ownership of the recording at issue; knowledge that their recording has been

performed, and steps taken to seek payment or stop such performances; and

statements or conduct manifesting a license or consent to Sirius XM’s

performances. The depositions would be limited to four hours, although Sirius XM

reserves its right to seek additional time, and additional discovery, upon a showing

of good cause.

Sirius XM also intends to seek limited discovery from third parties

SoundExchange, MRI, and Greenspan concerning ownership issues that first arose

in class certification briefing (and after the close of discovery). Ownership is a

threshold liability issue that each class member bears the burden of establishing. In

granting class certification, the Court relied on Flo & Eddie’s assertions that these

third parties could “assist in identifying owners of the pre-1972 recordings at issue”

and that MRI has a “‘song-by-song’ ownership database covering ‘virtually all of

the commercially significant music in existence.’” Dkt. 225 at 10; Dkt. 200 at 6.






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

But Flo & Eddie’s assertions have never been tested, and given the importance of

ownership in this case, discovery is essential to verify whether these third parties

actually possess complete and accurate ownership information—particularly since

MRI itself has conceded that ownership information “is highly dynamic” and “it is

simply impossible to maintain a ‘phone book’ of definitive copyright ownership

information at a single point in time.” Dkt. 204-55, 204-59.

Flo & Eddie does not have a valid basis to oppose this limited discovery.

Sirius XM has a due process right to discovery necessary to defend itself at trial,

including discovery concerning whether SoundExchange, MRI, and Greenspan

have complete and reliable records evidencing ownership of pre-1972 recordings;

issues of authorization, waiver, estoppel, and laches as to absent class members;

and issues related to Flo & Eddie’s disgorgement theory—the sole basis on which it

seeks class damages, as disclosed for the first time in class certification briefing.

See In re Nat’l W. Life Ins. Deferred Annuities Lit., 2010 WL 4809330, at *3 (S.D.

Cal. Nov. 19, 2010) (“[T]he Court is unwilling to deny Defendants the opportunity

to meaningfully defend themselves.”), aff’d in part and overruled in part , 2011 WL

3438186 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2011) (reaffirming decision to permit post-certification

discovery of absent class members); Town of New Castle v. Yonkers Contracting

Co., 1991 WL 159848, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) (post-certification discovery

warranted where it would be “helpful to the proper presentation and correct

adjudication of the principal suit.”); WILLIAM B. R UBENSTEIN, NEWBERG ON CLASS

ACTIONS § 9:11 (5th ed. 2015) (noting, with respect to absent class member

discovery, that “a defendant has a due process right to so defend itself and should

not be unfairly prejudiced by being unable to develop its case”).

Although the Court ruled that Sirius XM cannot litigate its defenses as to Flo

& Eddie, this does not, and cannot, preclude Sirius XM from litigating its

defenses—let alone predicate liability issues, such as ownership and

authorization—as to absent class members. See Wright v. Schock , 742 F.2d 541,






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

544 (9th Cir. 1984). As the Court acknowledged in its class certification order,

Sirius XM has never had the opportunity to litigate these issues with respect to

absent class members. Dkt. 225 at 16-19. Indeed, Flo & Eddie has itself

acknowledged that some post-certification discovery is warranted. See Dkt. 228-1

(Flo & Eddie agreeing to provide additional discovery “if a class is certified”).

Moreover, the Court’s summary judgment order did not hold that Sirius

XM’s equitable defense of laches is wholly unavailable, as Flo & Eddie suggests.

Flo & Eddie moved for summary judgment on liability, not damages. While the

Court held that laches could not bar Flo & Eddie’s claims in their entirety, Dkt. 117

at 15, the Court has never addressed whether laches bars the equitable remedy of

disgorgement Flo & Eddie seeks—and it does, as Sirius XM will explain in its

forthcoming summary judgment motion.5 Supra Part IV.B.2.

In addition, courts frequently allow post-certification discovery where:

“(1) the discovery is not designed to take undue advantage of class members or to

reduce the size of the class; (2) the discovery is necessary; (3) responding to the

discovery requests would not require the assistance of counsel or other technical

advice; and (4) the discovery seeks information that is not already known by the

proponent.” Nat’l W., 2010 WL 4809330, at *2; Dkt. 232 at 6-7 (collecting cases).

As to the first factor, Sirius XM’s proposed discovery is narrowly tailored in terms

of the number of absent class members (15-20 of thousands), the grounds to be

covered (narrow, focused topics), and the burden (subject- and time-confined

depositions). Given these limits, Flo & Eddie’s argument that the proposed

discovery is designed to reduce the class size defies credibility.

5 Flo & Eddie argues in the footnote above that it seeks legal damages rather thanequitable disgorgement. Flo & Eddie seeks recovery of Sirius XM’s profits

(without deduction of costs). The law is very clear that where, as here, a plaintiff

seeks recovery of defendant’s gains (rather than restoration of plaintiff’s losses),that is an equitable remedy regardless of how the plaintiff characterizes it. Meister

v. Mensinger , 230 Cal. App. 4th 381, 396-98 (2014).






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

As to the second and fourth factors, this discovery is “necessary” because it

seeks information that is only in possession of absent class members. Moreover,

discovery concerning ownership and authorization is directly relevant to liability

and damages. As the Court has acknowledged, any class member that is unable to

establish ownership, or that authorized use of its recording, must be excluded from

the class, which in turn reduces plaintiffs’ remedy (if any). See Dkt. 225 at 20.

As to the third factor, Sirius XM’s discovery is narrowly tailored to focus on

information within the “personal knowledge” of the absent class members, and thus

will not require assistance of counsel (although Sirius XM has no objection to

having class counsel present for the class members’ depositions). See Nat’l W.,

2010 WL 4809330, at *2 (“depositions [would] not require assistance because the

deponents [could] testify based on their personal knowledge”). The Court itself

recognized that “owners will have personal knowledge as to whether they

authorized or licensed Sirius XM to perform their recordings.” Dkt. 225 at 11.

2. Sirius XM Is Willing To Supplement Prior Discovery Pursuant

To Rule 26(e)

While Sirius XM has no objection to supplementing prior discovery pursuant

to Rule 26(e), the additional discovery Flo & Eddie proposes above is overbroad

and amounts to a transparent attempt to obtain discovery it should have sought

before the discovery cut-off. Sirius XM agrees to supplement prior damages

discovery so that Flo & Eddie can update its prior calculations. Sirius XM also

agrees to produce any licenses for the use of pre-1972 recordings it has entered into

after April 14, 2015—the last date Sirius XM produced such documents.

Sirius XM objects, however, to any additional discovery—including

discovery into the settlement of a lawsuit brought in Los Angeles Superior Court by

Capitol Records, LLC, Sony Music Entertainment, UMG Recordings, Inc., Warner

Music Group Corporation, and ABKCO Music & Records, Inc. (the “Capitol

Records settlement”). The law is clear that settlement documents and






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

communications are privileged and not discoverable. See Folb v. Motion Picture

Indus. Pension & Health Plans, 16 F. Supp. 2d 1164, 1180 (C.D. Cal. 1998), aff’d ,

216 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2000) (denying discovery and confirming “communications

in preparation for and during the course of a mediation with a neutral must be

protected”); Dkt. 247 at 23:21-24:14.

3. Flo & Eddie Is Not Entitled To Discovery Concerning Sirius

XM’s Direct License Negotiations With Recording Owners.

In connection with Sirius XM’s pending motion to continue the stay issued

on June 8, 2015, Flo & Eddie has asserted that direct license negotiations between

Sirius XM employees and recording owners—which have been ongoing for many

years—are barred by the ethical rules and that the stay should be lifted so Flo &

Eddie can challenge those communications. Dkt. 264 at 13-16. During the parties’

November 30, 2015 meet and confer concerning this report, Flo & Eddie indicated

that it would seek discovery concerning Sirius XM’s communications with

recording owners, and file a motion for a protective order barring future

communications and a motion seeking to “unwind” any agreements between Sirius

XM and recording owners—including the June 17, 2015 Capitol Records

settlement.

As set forth in Sirius XM’s motion to continue the stay, see id., and in the

prior briefing on Flo & Eddie’s unsuccessful ex parte application to lift the stay so

it could challenge the Capitol Records settlement, see Dkts. 241, 245, 247, 248, Flo

& Eddie’s assertions are factually and legally inaccurate, and nothing more than a

strategic ploy to avoid a further stay and extract unwarranted attorneys’ fees. There

have been no improper communications between Sirius XM and putative class

members, and thus there is no basis for Flo & Eddie to seek discovery or challenge

these communications.






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

In any event, if Flo & Eddie wishes to seek discovery beyond the

supplementation of prior discovery pursuant to Rule 26(e) discussed above, Sirius

XM requests further briefing to fully address the issues for the Court.

IV.

MOTIONS

A.

Flo & Eddie’s Position

1. Contemplated Motions.

Flo & Eddie anticipates that the discovery regarding Sirius XM’s contact

with class members regarding this litigation, as well as its attempts to settle with

those class members, will potentially result in a number of motions, including a

motion for protective order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(d) prohibiting improper

contact and communication with class members and for curative relief. In addition,

as set forth in the ex parte application filed by Flo & Eddie on July 8, 2015, Flo &

Eddie intends to file additional motions based on the common fund and substantial

benefit doctrines. Flo & Eddie also anticipates that discovery related motions may

be necessary. Finally, Flo & Eddie is anticipating filing motions in limine,

including motions to bar: (1) in whole or in part the “expert” testimony of Elliot

Goldman and Keith Ugone; and (2) any testimony or argument by Sirius XM

regarding its state of mind as it is now barred pursuant to United States v. Bilzerian,

926 F.2d 1285, 1292 (2d Cir. 1991), Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc. v. Abbott

Labs., Inc., 552 F.3d 1033, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009), and Chevron Corp. v. Pennzoil

Co., 974 F.2d 1156, 1162 (9th Cir. 1992).

2. Pending Motions.

The only pending motion is Sirius XM’s motion for a stay, which is now the

fifth different ex parte application and/or motion it has filed in this action

requesting indeterminate stays. Having now run out of gas at the Ninth Circuit with

respect to its meritless Rule 23(f) petition (including making the extraordinary

request for en banc review of the Ninth Circuit’s one sentence discretionary order

denying the original petition), Sirius XM now seeks another indeterminate stay






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

until such time as Pandora exhausts its appeal to the Ninth Circuit of the February

23, 2015 order denying its anti-SLAPP motion. According to Sirius XM, Pandora’s

appeal will be dispositive of the issues in this case, therefore justifying another

several year delay in these proceedings. While Flo & Eddie’s opposition to Sirius

XM’s motion is not due until January 4, 2016, for purposes of this Scheduling

Conference, it is important for the Court to understand why a further stay is

unwarranted. Besides the fact that Sirius XM cannot even make a threshold

showing that the balance of hardships tips in favor of a stay, Adams v. Target Corp

2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151154, *2-5 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2014), there are at least

five other reasons why a further stay is inappropriate.

First, contrary to Sirius XM’s contention, the appeal filed by Pandora will

not affect this Court’s liability ruling against Sirius XM. Indeed, regardless of the

outcome of Pandora’s appeal, Sirius XM is now collaterally estopped by Judge

Mary Strobel’s October 14, 2014 ruling in Capitol Records LLC et al. v. Sirius XM

Radio Inc., No. BC-520981 (Super. Ct. L.A. County) from contending that Civ.

Code §980(a)(2) does not provide owners of pre-1972 recordings with an exclusive

right of public performance. On June 17, 2015, Sirius XM purported to settle the

Capitol Records action after having lost its petitions to reconsider the existence of a

public performance right before the California Court of Appeals on February 23,

2015 and the California Supreme Court on April 29, 2015. Because Sirius XM

agreed to a stipulated dismissal of Capitol Records, Judge Strobel’s adverse ruling

against it is now final and bars Sirius XM from challenging it in this Court. Ross v.

International Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 634 F.2d 453, 457 n.6 (9th Cir. 1980) (holding

that the doctrine of collateral estoppel “bars a party from relitigating

an issue identical to one he has previously litigated to a determination on its merits

in another action.”); see also Hernandez v. City of Pomona, 46 Cal. 4th 501, 511

(2009) (“For purposes of collateral estoppel, an issue was actually litigated in a

prior proceeding if it was properly raised, submitted for determination, and






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

determined in that proceeding.”); Green v. Ancora-Citronelle Corp., 577 F.2d 1380

1383-84 (9th Cir. 1978) (holding stipulation of settlement by parties in state court

constituted final judgment on the merits for collateral estoppel purposes). Sirius

XM’s argument that settlement does not ordinarily trigger collateral estoppel only

applies when the issues being settled have not actually been litigated. See Rice v.

Crow, 81 Cal. App. 4th 725, 735 (2000). In Capitol Records, they were.

Second , the Ninth Circuit’s ruling will have no bearing on this case if it

affirms the denial of Pandora’s motion to strike based on Pandora’s failure to

satisfy the first prong of the anti-SLAPP analysis. Pursuant to that prong, it is

Pandora’s burden to show that Flo & Eddie’s claims arise from protected activity

and that its conduct was taken “in furtherance of the exercise of...the constitutional

right of free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest.”

Cal. Civ. Code §425.16(e)(4). An affirmance based on Pandora’s failure to satisfy

the first prong will render any stay in this action meaningless.

Third , because Flo & Eddie’s burden with respect to Pandora’s motion to

strike is simply to “demonstrate a probability of prevailing on the challenged

claims,” Mindys Cosmetics, Inc. v. Dakar , 611 F.3d 590, 595 (9th Cir. 2010), an

affirmance by the Ninth Circuit that does no more than conclude that Flo & Eddie

has satisfied its burden may result in an opinion that is something less than a full

legal analysis. Thus, a narrow ruling by the Ninth Circuit based on the specific

language of the second prong will also render any stay in this action meaningless.

Fourth, the class will be severely prejudiced by a continued stay. Although

this case has now been certified for seven months, the class still has not even

received formal notice of this action or of its rights. It is time to move the class

process along, particularly given the unethical and illegal conduct that Sirius XM

has engaged in throughout the stay. Leaving aside Sirius XM’s settlement with the

major labels (which was raised previously by Flo & Eddie in an ex parte

application), despite being advised in writing on June 26, 2015 that it was not






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

permitted to have direct settlement discussions with class members, counsel for Flo

& Eddie has recently learned that Sirius XM (both through its in-house legal

counsel and executive management) has in fact continued doing exactly that in

order to persuade class members to settle the claims at issue in this litigation,

execute releases “arising out of or relating to the use, distribution, copying and/or

public performance of Pre-72 Recording [s],” and opt out of the class “[i]n the cases

titled Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc. et al.” In other words, Sirius XM is

having the exact communications that the law does not allow. The prejudice to the

class members who have fallen victim to Sirius XM’s settlement entreaties is

manifest and so too is the prejudice to the entire class, particularly given that it is

doubtful Sirius XM has also been advising these class members that it has already

been found liable and that these class members are entitled to significant damages.

Despite the clear legal prohibition against communicating with class

members about this litigation, Sirius XM claims that its discussions with class

members are nevertheless proper because it has been having “direct license

negotiations between Sirius XM employees and record owners…for many years”

and that it is merely conducting “business negotiations,” (Motion for Stay 2:21-22,

16:10-16) However, as the Court knows, until Flo & Eddie filed its motion for

class certification, Sirius XM readily admitted that it never licensed any pre-1972

recordings and never sought to do so. (Dkt. 225, p. 18) Thus, to the extent that

Sirius XM is now trying to give the impression that there were so-called multi-year

discussions taking place with respect to pre-1972 recordings, it is creating a

patently false record. Moreover, the “Sirius XM employees” that Sirius XM is

vaguely referring to are its lawyers and employees working at the behest of those

lawyers – the exact people who are ethically barred from having those discussions.

What Sirius XM has ignored is that, under the law, the moment that the class in this

case was certified, whatever discussions Sirius XM was having (or wanted to have)

with class members regarding settlement of their pre-1972 recordings had to stop –






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

especially where Sirius XM is claiming preexisting business relationships, as those

relationships exacerbate (rather than ameliorate) the potential for mischief. See

Mevorah v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28615, *13

(N.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2005) (finding that a “[d]efendant's statements also have a

heightened potential for coercion because where the absent class member and the

defendant are involved in an ongoing business relationship … any communications

are more likely to be coercive.”) (quotes and internal citation omitted).

Fifth, to the extent Sirius XM is attempting to rely upon the pending appeal

in Jones v. ConAgra Foods, No. 14-16327 (9th Cir.), it is merely rehashing the

failed arguments from its Rule 23(f) petition, none of which have merit. While

Sirius XM continues to pretend that the issue of self-identification in a class action

is a categorical one, and that the Ninth Circuit’s pending decision in Jones is poised

to resolve it, neither assertion is true. In consumer class actions, whether self-

identification is a permissible method of ascertaining class membership turns on

whether the facts of the case render it a reliable method for doing so. See Brown v.

Hain Celestial Group, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162038, *26 (N.D. Cal. Nov.

18, 2014). Indeed, that is the exact basis upon which the District Court in

Jones declined to find the class before it ascertainable, noting that “it is hard to

imagine that [putative class members] would be able to remember which particular

Hunt's products they purchased from 2008 to the present, and whether those

products bore the challenged label statements.” Jones v. ConAgra Foods, Inc.,

2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81292, *34-36 (N.D. Cal. June 13, 2014). The facts

of Jones are in no way similar to the facts of this case, and Sirius XM does not

claim otherwise. Accordingly, there is no indicia that Jones will have any bearing

on these proceedings whatsoever– particularly given that “[i]n the end this question

is not [even] dispositive, because a lack of ascertainability alone will generally not

scuttle class certification.” Id. at *38 (quotes and internal citation omitted).

For the reasons set forth above (and others), Sirius XM’s motion is without






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

merit and is simply part of its goal of prejudicing the class by delaying the

resolution of this case.

B.

Sirius XM’s Position

1. Pending Motions

On November 25, 2015, Sirius XM filed a motion to continue the stay issued

on June 8, 2015 pending resolution of Pandora’s related appeal in Flo & Eddie, Inc.

v. Pandora Media, Inc., Appeal No. 15-55287 (9th Cir.). Dkt. 264. The issue at

the heart of this case and the Pandora case is the same: i.e., whether California law

grants the owner of a pre-1972 recording an absolute and unfettered right to control

all performances of that recording. In both cases, the Court held that California

Civil Code Section 980(a)(2) provides such a right. The Court’s ruling in the

Pandora case is currently on appeal, and if the Ninth Circuit reverses, that would

compel judgment for Sirius XM in this case and eliminate the need for further

proceedings. Sirius XM believes that a stay would be the most efficient and

sensible approach. See Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., 593 F.2d 857, 863 (9th

Cir. 1979) (stay warranted where resolution of related appeal could be case-

dispositive); Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 256 (1936) (need for stay

particularly strong where, as here, case presents “novel problems of far-reaching

importance to the parties and the public”). Sirius XM’s motion will be fully briefed

on January 11, 2016, and a hearing is scheduled for January 25, 2016.

Flo & Eddie’s inclusion of four pages of substantive argument opposing

Sirius XM’s motion to stay in this Rule 26(f) report is wholly inappropriate. Sirius

XM disagrees with Flo & Eddie’s arguments, which are inaccurate. For example,

Flo & Eddie’s argument that the Ninth Circuit’s reversal of the performance-right

ruling in Pandora would have no impact on this case because the Capitol Records

settlement resulted in a stipulated dismissal of that case is plainly false. The effect

of the stipulated dismissal in the Capitol Records case is to bar the plaintiffs in that

case from re-litigating the same claims and issues against Sirius XM. That






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

dismissal did not, and could not, represent a concession of liability by Sirius XM.

None of the cases Flo & Eddie cites remotely supports its argument, and the law is

clear that “[a] settlement which avoids trial generally does not constitute actually

litigating any issues and thus prevents application of collateral estoppel.” Rice v.

Crow, 81 Cal. App. 4th 725, 736 (2000). If there were any other rule, the risk of

collateral estoppel “would chill the settlement process.” Cell Therapeutics, Inc. v.

Lash Grp., Inc., 586 F.3d 1204, 1210-12 (9th Cir. 2010).

Sirius XM will more fully respond to Flo & Eddie’s arguments in its reply in

support of its motion to stay.

2. Anticipated Dispositive Motions

Sirius XM intends to file a motion for summary judgment challenging the

viability of Flo & Eddie’s disgorgement theory. Flo & Eddie emphasized its

request for compensatory damages when it moved for summary judgment on

liability, see Dkt. 111 at 9, but in an effort to avoid individualized damages

inquiries, Flo & Eddie abandoned that theory in class certification briefing in favor

of disgorgement. See Dkt. 180 at 11 n.4, 18; Dkt. 185 (Wallace Decl.) ¶ 9.

Disgorgement is an equitable remedy that is unavailable where, as here, the

defendant is not a conscious wrongdoer. See, e.g., Meister , 230 Cal. App. 4th at

398 (“the object of the disgorgement remedy [is] to eliminate the possibility of

profit from conscious wrongdoing”). There is no evidence of conscious

wrongdoing by Sirius XM—nor can there be, since as the Court has acknowledged,

“nobody knew about the [performance] right until [the Court] said there was a

right.” Dkt. 234 at 26:6-10. Likewise, punitive damages are unavailable where, as

here, “the key issue is one of first impression.” Morgan Guar. Trust Co. v. Am.

Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 804 F.2d 1487, 1500 (9th Cir. 1986).

Depending on what class discovery reveals—for example, that there is no

reliable way to identify pre-1972 recording owners or that individualized issues

concerning ownership and authorization predominate over any common issues—






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

there could be a basis for Sirius XM to file a motion for decertification. See

Westways World Travel, Inc. v. AMR Corp., 2005 WL 6523266, at *6-7 (C.D. Cal.

Feb. 24, 2005) (decertifying class based on new facts developed in post-

certification discovery). In addition, the Ninth Circuit is currently considering

whether class membership may be determined by self-identifying affidavits—the

very process Flo & Eddie proposed in this case. See Dkt. 225 at 15 (agreeing to Flo

& Eddie’s proposal “that ... class members ... establish ownership by affidavit or

declaration”). In Jones v. ConAgra Foods, 2014 WL 2702726, at *8 (N.D. Cal.

June 13, 2014), the district court denied plaintiff’s motion for class certification on

the ground that the putative class was not ascertainable, and self-identifying

affidavits were not “an objective, reliable way to ascertain class membership.” The

ConAgra appeal has been fully briefed and should be resolved early next year.

Appeal No. 14-16327 (9th Cir.). If the Ninth Circuit affirms the district court’s

ruling, its decision may warrant decertification of the class in this case.

Aside from dispositive motions, Sirius XM anticipates motion practice

concerning the issues addressed in Part III, as well as motions in limine.

V.

CLASS NOTICE AND OPT-OUT PROCESS

The parties agree on the basic process and outstanding tasks, though they

disagree as to scheduling issues. Because the case was stayed before a class notice

plan could be agreed upon or implemented, the parties must still meet and confer on

the notice plan. That notice plan may include some or all of the following: (1) the

notice’s form and content, (2) how or where class notice will be published, (3) who

will receive it, (4) how interested parties can present objections, and (5) how the

opt-out process will function and how long it will last. See Judges’ Class Action

Notice and Claims Process Checklist 4 (2010). After the parties have met and

conferred, Flo & Eddie will prepare a proposed class notice plan and circulate it to

Sirius XM for objections. If the parties are unable to reach agreement, Flo & Eddie

will file a motion for approval of its class notice plan. Following the Court’s ruling






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

on that motion, class notice will be circulated and an opt-out period will open and

expire.

Flo & Eddie believes that this entire process can be completed within 90 days

of the December 21, 2015 scheduling conference. Sirius XM believes that the

process will take closer to six months—largely because it contends that due process

requires a 60-90 day opt-out period. The parties’ respective scheduling proposals

are set forth in Section VI.

VI. PROPOSED SCHEDULE

The parties were unable to reach agreement on a pre-trial and trial schedule.

The parties’ respective proposals are separately set forth below.

A.

Flo & Eddie’s Proposal

Event Flo & Eddie’s Proposal

Parties meet and conferregarding notice plan,

exchange drafts and/or

objections to the proposed

plan

January 15, 2016

Flo & Eddie to submit

agreed upon plan andnotice to the Court or file

its motion for approval ofthe plan and notice

January 25, 2015

Hearing date for approval

of plan and notice

February 22, 20166

Cut-Off Date for Flo &Eddie Discovery cutoff

March 21, 2016

6 The ruling on Flo & Eddie’s motion for approval of the class notice and plan will

set the distribution date and the opt-out period.






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Cut-Off Date for Flo &

Eddie Motions to Compel

April 21, 2016

Motions in limine cutoff Pursuant to Standing Order

Final pretrial conference July 11, 2016

Trial date August 8, 2016

Preliminary estimate of

trial length

3-4 court days

B.

Sirius XM’s Proposal

Event Sirius XM’s Proposal

Parties meet and conferregarding notice plan

18 days after scheduling conference(January 8, 2016)

Plaintiff circulatesnotice plan

21 days after meet and confer(January 29, 2016)

Sirius XM’s objections to

notice plan

14 days after plaintiff circulates

notice plan(February 12, 2016)

Plaintiff moves for

approval of notice plan

7 days after Sirius XM’s objections

(February 19, 2016)

Hearing regardingnotice plan

28 days after plaintiff’s motion(March 21, 2016)

Distribution of class notice 7 days after hearing regarding notice plan

(March 28, 2016)

Opt-out period closes 90 days after distribution of class notice(June 27, 2016)

Class discovery cutoff 90 days before trial(June 21, 2016)




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Dispositive motions cutoff 90 days before trial

(June 21, 2016)

Motion in limine cutoff 75 days before trial(July 6, 2016)

Final pretrial conference 2 weeks before trial

(September 2, 2016)

Trial date September 19, 2016

Preliminary estimate of

trial length

10-15 court days

DATED: December 14, 2015 GRADSTEIN & MARZANO, P.C.

By: /s/ Harvey Geller

Harvey Geller

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Flo & Eddie, Inc.

DATED: December 14, 2015 O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP

By: /s/ Daniel M. Petrocelli

Daniel M. Petrocelli

Attorneys for DefendantSirius XM Radio Inc.


flo & eddie - cd ca - third 26(f) joint report.pdf

Documents