Pandora Media, LLC v. Spoken Giants, LLC Case No. 2:23-mc-00149-MCS-MAR United States District Court, C.D. California Filed February 07, 2024 Counsel Maximillian Wolden Hirsch, Douglas Allen Smith, Mayer Brown LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Raymond J. DiCamillo, Katharine Lester Mowery, Nathalie Anne Freeman, Richards Layton and Finger, PA, Wilmington, DE, Allison M. Aviki, Pro Hac Vice, Jacob B. Ebin, Pro Hac Vice, Paul M. Fakler, Pro Hac Vice, Mayer Brown LLP, New York, NY, for Pandora Media, LLC. John P. Cogger, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Joshua D. Wilson, Pro Hac Vice, Gordon Rees Skully Mansukhani LLP, Franklin, TN, for Spoken Giants, LLC. Scarsi, Mark C., United States District Judge Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER ON MOTION FOR REVIEW OF MAGISTRATE ORDER (ECF No. 37) *1 Before the Court is Applicant Pandora Media, LLC's motion for review of Magistrate Judge Rocconi's order regarding Pandora's motion to compel. (Mot., ECF No. 37.) Respondent Spoken Giants, LLC, opposed the motion, (Opp'n, ECF No. 38), and Pandora replied, (Reply, ECF No. 39). Spoken Giants was dismissed from the underlying consolidated litigation with prejudice. Order Re: Mot. to Dismiss Countercls. 28, Yellow Rose Productions, Inc. v. Pandora Media, LLC, No. 2:22-cv-00809-MCS-MAR, ECF No. 164. Subsequently, Pandora served a nonparty subpoena on Spoken Giants requesting the production of 28 categories of documents related to the underlying litigation. (SG Subp., ECF No. 3-1.) Spoken Giants responded to the subpoena. (DeArman Decl. ¶ 17, ECF No. 38-2.) Pandora subsequently filed a motion to compel Spoken Giants to comply with its subpoena, arguing Spoken Giants' response consisted “entirely of boilerplate objections.” (MTC 5, ECF No. 2.) Judge Rocconi granted in part and denied in part Pandora's motion to compel. (Order Re: Pandora's Mot. to Compel, ECF No. 36.) Pandora now challenges the Magistrate Judge's conclusions. A district judge may reconsider a magistrate judge's nondispositive order if it is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); accord Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). A magistrate judge's factual determinations are reviewed for clear error, and the judge's legal conclusions are reviewed de novo to determine whether they are contrary to law. Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 268 F.R.D. 344, 348 (N.D. Cal. 2010). Pandora challenges the Magistrate Judge's order on three grounds: that it was legal error for her to apply a higher relevance standard to discovery sought from Spoken Giants; that it was legal error for her to strike or limit Pandora's requests; and that it was legal error to permit Spoken Giants to respond to Pandora's discovery requests with boilerplate objections. (Mot. 1–2.) As a preliminary matter, the Magistrate Judge did not apply a higher relevance standard to Pandora's discovery requests. It is true Judge Rocconi noted that “the standards for nonparty discovery ... require a stronger showing of relevance than for simple party discovery,” (Order Re: Pandora's Mot. to Compel 4 (quoting Laxalt v. McClatchy, 116 F.R.D. 455, 458 (D. Nev. 1986)).) However, Judge Rocconi rested her conclusion limiting or striking several of the discovery requests on her finding that they were “not relevant to the claims or defenses at issue here,” (id. at 5), that “Pandora provide[d] no case law that supports the premise that a nonparty's financial data would be relevant to a plaintiff's claim for damages,” (id. at 7), and that several of the requests “amount[ed] to a request for information from Spoken Giants as an unretained expert,” (id. at 6). In other words, Judge Rocconi based several of her conclusions on the finding that many of Pandora's discovery requests to Spoken Giants were simply not relevant to Pandora's claims or defenses in the underlying litigation or that they were otherwise precluded by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id. at 5–7.) Because there is no evidence supporting Pandora's characterization of Judge Rocconi's conclusion as based on the application of a “higher relevance” standard, the Court need not address this argument. Instead, the Court turns to Pandora's second challenge: that it was legal error for Judge Rocconi to strike or limit many of Pandora's requests. *2 In its motion to compel, Pandora argued its discovery requests to Spoken Giants were relevant because they (1) relate to the copyright infringement and damages claims in the underlying litigation and (2) relate to Pandora's defenses including implied license, unclean hands, and copyright misuse. (MTC 2.) The federal discovery rules permit a party to obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and is proportional to the needs of the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Judge Rocconi granted Pandora's motion to compel discovery from Spoken Giants that involved communications between it and Plaintiffs in the underlying matter pertaining to the underlying copyright claims in the underlying litigation, (Order Re: Pandora's Mot. to Compel 5–6), but declined to compel discovery pertaining to “Spoken Giants's business model, investors, catalogue, research, clients (other than Plaintiffs), or communications with other entities that do not implicate Plaintiffs” as well as Spoken Giants' financial data on relevance grounds, (id. at 5–7). Judge Rocconi also declined to compel discovery of Spoken Giants' own commercial research pertaining to custom and practice in the comedy industry under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. (Id. at 6.) The Court concurs with Judge Rocconi's conclusion limiting or striking requests pertaining to Spoken Giants' business model, investors, catalogue, research, clients not including Plaintiffs, communications with other entities that do not implicate Plaintiffs, and financial data as not relevant to the underlying claims or Pandora's defenses. Spoken Giants was dismissed from the underlying case. Absent authority that its previous presence in the case, or its mere existence as a collective of comedians, makes the aforementioned categories relevant to Pandora's claims or defenses, the Court will not disturb Judge Rocconi's diligence in striking or limiting the discovery requests falling within these categories. The Court finds no legal error in Judge Rocconi's conclusion. The Court likewise concurs with Judge Rocconi's conclusion denying Pandora's motion to compel documents from Spoken Giants regarding its own commercial research pertaining to custom and practice in the comedy industry based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. (Order Re: Pandora's Mot. to Compel 6.) Judge Rocconi concluded the requests falling under this category “amount[ed] to a request for information from Spoken Giants as an unretained expert.” (Id.) On this basis, she “decline[d] to allow discovery into Spoken Giants's own commercial research except in the instance where that information was communicated to any Plaintiff.” (Id.) It is true a court may modify or quash a subpoena if it requires disclosure of a nonparty's views or research on the market in which it participates. Verinata Health, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., No. C 12-00865 SI, 2014 WL 2600367, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 10, 2014). The Court again finds no legal error in Judge Rocconi's conclusion. Pandora challenges Judge Rocconi's disregard of its argument that Spoken Giants provided only nonspecific and conclusory boilerplate objections in violation of Judge Rocconi's standing order and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(b)(2). The relevant portion of Judge Rocconi's standing order reads, “Parties responding to document requests shall not use boilerplate objections that violate Rule 34(b)(2) .... Nor shall responding parties use the concept of ‘disproportionality’ as a synonym for previous boilerplate objections of irrelevance, overbreadth, undue burden, or the like.” Standing Order on Discovery Disputes § 4.[1] A magistrate judge has “broad discretion to manage discovery.” Avila v. Willits Env't Remediation Tr., 633 F.3d 828, 833 (9th Cir. 2011); see C.D. Cal. General Order No. 05-07 (delegating discovery matters to magistrate judges in civil cases). Judge Rocconi acted well within that broad discretion in issuing her order. The only authority Pandora offers to support its argument that her disregard of Spoken Giants' discovery responses was legally erroneous is Judge Rocconi's own standing order, which incorporates Rule 34(b)(2). This Court will not review Judge Rocconi's enforcement of her own procedures, and Pandora provides no authority suggesting it must. *3 For the foregoing reasons, Pandora's motion is DENIED. The Court is grateful for Judge Rocconi's efforts to facilitate the myriad disputes among the parties. IT IS SO ORDERED. Footnotes [1] Judge Rocconi's standing order on discovery disputes is available on her webpage at https://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/honorable-margo-rocconi.