BLUEWATER MUSIC SERVICES CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. SPOTIFY USA INC., Defendant. ROBERT GAUDIO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SPOTIFY USA INC., Defendant. A4V DIGITAL, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. SPOTIFY USA INC., Defendant. ROBERTSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SPOTIFY USA INC., Defendant Case No. 3:17-cv-01051, Case No. 3:17-cv-01052, Case No. 3:17-cv-01256, Case No. 3:17-cv-01616 United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division Filed February 22, 2019 Counsel Christina Manna, Joshua D. Wilson, Liz A. Natal, Matthew G. Sipf, Richard S. Busch, Tara N. Stampley, King & Ballow, Nashville, TN, for Plaintiffs. A. Grace Van Dyke James, Breeding Henry Baysan PC, Knoxville, TN, Christopher Jon Sprigman, Michael Steven Carnevale, Sarah A. Sheridan, Thomas McMahon Cramer, Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett LLP, New York, NY, Harrison Frahn, Jeffrey E. Ostrow, Michael H. Joshi, Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett, LLP, Palo Alto, CA, Nicholas R. Valenti, Samuel F. Miller, Miller Legal Partners PLLC, Nashville, TN, for Defendant Frensley, Jeffrey S., United States Magistrate Judge ORDER *1 This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Documents. Docket No. 178. Plaintiff has also filed a Supporting Memorandum of Law. Docket No. 179. Defendant has filed a Response in Opposition. Docket No. 192. Plaintiff has filed a Reply. Docket No. 202. For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED. I. INTRODUCTION In this copyright infringement action, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Spotify USA Inc. (“Spotify”) is making unauthorized use of musical compositions that belong to Plaintiffs “in blatant disregard of the exclusive rights that are vested in copyright owners.” Docket No. 1, p. 1. Specifically, Plaintiffs claim that Spotify has reproduced and streamed 2,339 copyrighted works without the appropriate license and without paying the applicable royalties. Id. at 2-24. Spotify denies these allegations. This Motion seeks to compel Spotify to produce Request Files, Response Files, and Usage Reports from 2011 and 2012, and to supplement its production of monthly profit and loss statements. Docket No. 179. II. LAW AND ANALYSIS A. Discovery Requests and Motions to Compel Discovery in federal court is governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provide that a party may request production of documents or other tangible items as long as the information sought is within the scope of discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). In general, the scope of discovery extends to nonprivileged information that is relevant to any party's claim or defense, regardless of whether the information sought is admissible, that is “proportional to the needs of the case.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The Rules were amended, effective December 1, 2015, in part to address the alleged costs and abuses attendant to discovery. Under Rule 26, “[t]here is now a specific duty for the court and the parties to consider discovery in the light of its ‘proportional[ity] to the needs of the case ....’ ” Turner v. Chrysler Grp. LLC, No. 3:14-1747, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11133, at *2, (M.D. Tenn. Jan. 27, 2016), quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The following factors are relevant to a consideration of whether the scope of discovery is proportional: (1) the importance of the issues at stake in the action, (2) the amount in controversy, (3) the parties' relative access to relevant information, (4) the parties' resources, (5) the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and (6) whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (numbering added). “Nevertheless, the scope of discovery is, of course, within the broad discretion of the trial court.” Carell, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57435 at *5, quoting Lewis v. ACB Bus. Servs., Inc., 135 F.3d 389, 402 (6th Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks omitted). After making a good faith effort to resolve a dispute, a party may move for an order compelling discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). The moving party “must demonstrate that the requests are relevant to the claims or defenses in the pending action.” Carell, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57435 at *5, quoting Anderson v. Dillard's, Inc., 251 F.R.D. 307, 309-10 (W.D. Tenn. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). “If relevancy is shown, the party resisting discovery bears the burden of demonstrating why the request is unduly burdensome or otherwise not discoverable under the Federal Rules.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). B. The Discovery Matters at Issue 1. The 2011 and 2012 Request Files, Response Files, and Usage Reports *2 Plaintiffs assert that Spotify has produced Request Files, Response Files, and Usage Reports from 2013 forward, but has not produced those materials for 2011 and 2012. Docket No. 179, p. 3-6. Plaintiffs contend that “the files are relevant as they will provide threshold information to Plaintiffs' claims and defenses such as ‘when Spotify first reproduced, distributed, and/or made available for streaming and/or limited download on Spotify.’ ” Id. at 5, citing Docket No. 167-8 (Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories). Plaintiffs argue that discovery should not be limited on the basis of the applicable statute of limitations, because Spotify has not raised a statute of limitations defense in a motion. Id. They further argue that “[t]he Stipulated E-Discovery Protocol does not limit discovery to five years” and “[t]here is not a heightened threshold of necessity.” Id. Docket No. 202, p. 5. Spotify responds that the E-Discovery Protocol limits ESI discovery to five years before the filing of the original Complaint. Docket No. 192, page 2. Further, Spotify argues that Plaintiffs have not shown the relevance of documents that might show that streams occurred in 2011 or 2012, as these years are beyond the Copyright Act's three-year statute of limitations. Id. at 4-7. Spotify also asserts that the “lack of relevance is exacerbated by the requested production's potential to throw these cases' discovery schedules into disarray.” Id. at 7. As a threshold matter, Plaintiffs have incorrectly characterized the Parties' Stipulated E-Discovery Protocol, which has become an Order of the Court. Docket Nos. 93, 93-1. That Order states, in relevant part: 9. Time Constraints. The parties shall negotiate a reasonable time period to search each custodians' ESI, not to exceed five (5) years prior to the filing of the original Complaint. However, if the search or other discovery reveals the need to conduct a search prior to five (5) years before the filing of the original Complaint, the parties shall negotiate in good faith to agree upon a proper time period for any necessary searches for ESI prior to the filing of the original Complaint. Docket No. 93-1, p. 8 (emphasis added). As can be seen, this Order does indeed limit ESI discovery to five years prior to the filing of the original Complaint. Further, the Order clearly indicates that any negotiation for a search to extend beyond that date would only take place if the Parties' discovery revealed that such a search would be necessary. Additionally, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the documents they request are relevant to the claims or defenses in the pending actions. Specifically, Plaintiffs have not articulated why evidence (if it existed) that Spotify streamed the works-in-suit prior to the period covered by the applicable statute of limitations would be relevant. Plaintiffs' arguments on this point are not persuasive. It is therefore unnecessary for Spotify to produce Request Files, Response Files, or Usage Reports from 2011 or 2012. 2. Spotify's Profit and Loss Statements Plaintiffs contend that Spotify should supplement its production of monthly profit and loss statements because, in its original production, the statements “were missing substantial line items and contain hidden materials.” Docket No. 179, p. 6. Plaintiffs argue that “[t]his Request is relevant as it encompasses information that is being sought by consultants or experts to determine liability and damages.” Id. at 7. Spotify responds that the Motion should be denied as moot with respect to the profit and loss statements because they have already been produced and supplemented. Docket No. 192, p. 10. Spotify asserts that “the reason Spotify [originally] produced the Statements in image format, as opposed to in native, was because the native version contained hidden columns with certain privileged information.” Id. Spotify states that its supplemental production is a redacted native version of the statements. Id. *3 Plaintiffs reply that Spotify has not provided a privilege log for any documents withheld on the basis of privilege, including any “hidden rows” in the profit and loss statements. Docket No. 202, p. 6. Plaintiffs also assert that they are “reviewing the [supplemental production of] Statements to ensure that Spotify has completed its discovery obligations.” Id. It is undisputed that Spotify has supplemented its production of monthly profit and loss statements. See Docket No. 192, p. 10; Docket No. 202, p. 6. Thus, the issue of whether Spotify should supplement its production of monthly profit and loss statements appears to be moot. If, in the course of Plaintiffs' review of the supplemental production, they discovery that Spotify has not “completed its discovery obligations,” they will undoubtedly notify the Court. Meanwhile, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5), Spotify is ordered to provide a privilege log if it has withheld any documents on the basis of privilege. III. CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Documents (Docket No. 178) is DENIED. Spotify is ordered to provide a privilege log if it has withheld any documents on the basis of privilege. IT IS SO ORDERED.