Batiste v. Lewis
Batiste v. Lewis
2019 WL 7557822 (E.D. La. 2019)
March 25, 2019
Roby, Karen Wells, United States Magistrate Judge
Summary
The court ordered the parties to sign their responses to the interrogatories within fourteen days and denied the plaintiff's request for attorney's fees. Additionally, the court may require the parties to produce ESI such as emails, text messages, and other digital documents as part of their responses to the interrogatories, and may consider ESI when making its decision on the plaintiff's request for attorney's fees.
Additional Decisions
PAUL BATISTE
v.
RYAN LEWIS, ET AL
v.
RYAN LEWIS, ET AL
CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-04435
United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
Filed March 25, 2019
Counsel
DaShawn Paul Hayes, Hayes Law Firm, PLC, New Orleans, LA, for Paul Batiste.Mary Ellen Roy, Dan Brian Zimmerman, Phelps Dunbar, LLP, New Orleans, LA, Barry I. Slotnick, Pro Hac Vice, Barry I. Slotnick, Attorney at Law, Christian D. Carbone, Pro Hac Vice, Erin Smith Dennis, Pro Hac Vice, Loeb & Loeb, LLP, New York, NY, for Ryan Lewis, Ben Haggerty, Ryan Lewis Publishing, Macklemore, LLC, Andrew Joslyn, Allen Stone, Andrew Joslyn Music, LLC, Stickystones Publishing.
Mary Ellen Roy, Phelps Dunbar, LLP, New Orleans, LA, Barry I. Slotnick, Pro Hac Vice, Barry I. Slotnick, Attorney at Law, Christian D. Carbone, Pro Hac Vice, Erin Smith Dennis, Pro Hac Vice, Loeb & Loeb, LLP, New York, NY, for Macklemore Publishing
Roby, Karen Wells, United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER
*1 Before the Court is the Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery Requests (R. Doc. 77), seeking an order compelling the Defendants to provide responses to the Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories and First Set of Requests for Production of Documents. The motion is opposed. R. Doc. 80. Oral arguments were held on January 23, 2019. R. Doc. 79.
I. Background
This is copyright infringement case was filed by Paul Batiste, a New Orleans jazz musician that is the founding member and owner of Artang Publishing, LLC and the Batiste Brothers Band. Id. at p. 2. Defendants Ryan Lewis and Ben Haggerty are a famous hip-hop duo known as “Macklemore and Ryan Lewis,” who have achieved international success for their singles “Thrift Shop” and “Can’t Hold Us. Id.” Defendants have also received several Grammy awards, including those for best new artist, best album, and best rap performance for their single “Thrift Shop.” Id.
Plaintiff alleges that defendants willfully infringed on his copyrights by using unauthorized samples and copying elements of eleven of plaintiff’s original songs in the composition of “Thrift Shop,” “Can’t Hold Us,” “Need to Know,” “Same Love,” and “Neon Cathedral.” Id. Plaintiff also sued several others who were credited with writing the songs, and the publishing companies who own the rights to the compositions. Id. Plaintiff contends, inter alia, that he is entitled to actual damages and defendants’ profits in connection with the infringed copy-righted songs. R. Doc. 40 at p. 13-22.
On June 26, 2018, the Plaintiff sent his First Set of Interrogatories and First Set of Requests for Production of Documents (due by July 27, 2018) that sought information about: (1) the sales and revenue of the alleged infringing songs; (2) individuals who may have discoverable information; and (3) information that would assist plaintiff in substantiating his claims. Id. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants did not send their responses until August 16, 2018, and further that their responses were “severely non-responsive and laden with boilerplate objections.” Id.
The Plaintiff also contends that he sent notification of the Defendants’ deficiencies and requested a Rule 37 conference via telephone, which was held on November 14, 2018. During the conference, the Defendants agreed to supplement their responses to Interrogatory No. 10 and produce their business arrangements, pertinent songs, and participation agreements. Id. However, the Plaintiff contends that the Defendants have only produced Broadcast Music Inc. (BMI) royalty statements and incoherent excel spreadsheets, and that as a result, the Plaintiff’s hired damages expert cannot produce an opinion. Id.
The Plaintiff further contends that on December 4, 2018, the parties held another conference to discuss the Defendants’ incomplete responses, and the Defendants claimed they produced all the documents within their possession. Id. at p. 2-5. However, the Plaintiff now states that, as of the filing of their motion to compel on January 16, 2019, the Defendants have not fully complied with their agreement. R. Doc. 77-1 at p. 1-2.
*2 The Plaintiff now requests that the Court: (1) compel defendants to provide complete responses within fourteen days; (2) declare that defendants’ objections are waived, on all grounds other than privilege, for failing to timely respond to discovery requests; (3) order defendants to comply with Rules 33(b)(3) and (4); (4) order defendants to sign, under oath, interrogatory responses to which no objections are made; and (5) order defendants to pay reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses associated with bringing this motion. Id. at p. 5.
The Defendants oppose, contending: (1) the Plaintiff gave an extension to provide responses to the requested discovery on August 16, 2018, to which the Defendants complied; (2) the Defendants never agreed to produce information regarding the Defendants’ “business arrangements” because the request is very vague and irrelevant; and (3) the Defendants’ financial production of revenue-related information was substantially complete as of October 26, 2018 when they produced thousands of pages of financial records and statements, hundreds of hours of confidential data regarding the recording sessions, and participation agreements, as well as location information. R. Doc. 80, p. 1-8.
II. Standard of Review
Rule 26 provides that discoverable matters must be both “relevant” and “proportional” to the needs of the case. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc. v. Yang Kun Chung, 321 F.R.D. 250, 279 (N.D. Tex. 2017); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Relevance focuses on the claims and defenses in the case, not its general subject matter. Wittmann v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., No. CV 17-90501, 2018 WL 3374164, at *2 (E.D. La. July 11, 2018). Proportionality includes analyzing the following six factors: (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); Wittmann, 2018 WL 3374164 at*2.
A. Interrogatories and Requests for Production
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(2) permits parties to serve interrogatories on other parties that “relate to any matter that may be inquired into under Rule 26(b).” Each interrogatory must, to the extent it is not objected to, be “answered separately and fully in writing under oath.” Id. at 33(b)(3). “The person who makes the answers must sign them, and the attorney who objects must sign any objections.” Id. at 33(b)(5). The grounds for objecting to an interrogatory must be stated with specificity. Id. at 33(b)(4). “An interrogatory is not objectionable merely because it asks for an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact.” Id. at 33(a)(2). The responding party must provide answers to the interrogatories within 30 days after being served with the interrogatories. Id. at 33(b)(2). Any ground not stated in a timely objection is waived unless the court, for good cause, excuses the failure. Id. at 33(b)(4).
Rule 34 permits parties to serve on other parties a request for “documents or electronically stored information ... stored in any medium from which information can be obtained.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1)(A). Requests must “describe with reasonable particularity each item or category of items to be inspected.” Id. at 34(b)(1)(A). “The party to whom the request is directed must respond in writing within 30 days after being served. Id. at 34(b)(2)(A). An objection must state whether any responsive materials are being withheld based on that objection. Id. at 34(b)(2)(C). Although Rule 34 does not provide that untimely objections are waived, the Fifth Circuit has found that the waiver provision applies equally to Rule 34. In re United States, 864 F.2d 1153, 1156 (5th Cir. 1989); See also Mountain States Pipe & Supply Company v. Triton Water Techs., Inc., 2014 WL 12730976, at *2.
III. Analysis
A. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Under Rule 37
*3 Here, the Defendants contend that the Plaintiff’s motion is procedurally defective because the Plaintiff did not include a Rule 37 Certification. R. Doc. 80, p. 14. Rather, the Defendants contend that the Plaintiff’s motion stated only that a Rule 37 conference took place on November 16, 2018 where the Defendants agreed to produce information regarding the Defendants’ business relationships, pertinent songs of the defendants, and participation agreements. Id. Further, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiff’s motion vaguely states that another Rule 37 conference was held on December 4, 2018, but does not detail what was discussed or what requests were at issue. Id.
The Defendants argue that these certifications are “mistaken” because they indicate that the Defendants have not produced certain categories of documents that they have in fact produced. Id. The Defendants further argue that the Plaintiff has not demonstrated a good faith attempt to resolve the discovery disputes without court intervention and that his motion should be denied. Id. at p. 15.
First, the Court notes that, at the end of the Plaintiff’s motion, he in fact included a Rule 37 Certification stating that the Parties had a telephone conference on November 16, 2018 and December 4, 2018 to resolve the discovery disputes, but both attempts were unsuccessful. R. Doc. 77-1, p. 7.
Second, the Court notes that the Defendants have included an email sent on November 9, 2018, where the Plaintiff in fact requested a Rule 37 conference for November 14, 2018. R. Doc. 80-13, p. 1. Additionally, the Defendants included: (1) an email sent on November 14, 2018, where the Defendants produced the ProTools session for the Defendants’ songs as mentioned in the Plaintiffs’ discovery requests; (2) an email sent on November 15, 2018, regarding the “next steps” of production where the Defendants mentioned their opposition to the production of the Defendants’ business arrangements, the agreement to produce commercially available versions of the Defendants’ songs, and the agreement to produce participation agreements; and (3) an emailsent on November 28, 2018 where they produced participation agreements, as well as other documents subject to the protective order.
This suggests that a Rule 37 conference was held in November 2018 as the Plaintiff stated. Further, the Defendants do not contest that a Rule 37 conference was held in November 2018 and that a second Rule 37 conference was held on December 4, 2018. As such, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has met the Rule 37 requirements and has properly filed a motion to compel.
B. Waiver of Objections
The Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories and First Set of Requests for Production of Documents were served on defendants on June 26, 2018. R. Doc. 77-3. Defendants’ responses were due on July 26, 2018. R. Doc. 80-3. On July 19, 2018, the Defendants requested an extension of time to respond to the Plaintiff’s request for August 16, 2018. Id. The Plaintiff responded, saying: “Sure, no problem.” Id. On August 16, 2018, the Defendants provided objections and answers to the Plaintiff’s interrogatories and requests. R. Docs. at 77-5 and 77-6.
Here, the Plaintiff granted the Defendants an extension of time to respond to the Plaintiff’s interrogatories and requests for production on August 16, 2018. R. Doc. 80-3. Moreover, the record shows that the Defendants timely responded to the interrogatories and requests for production on August 16, 2018. R. Docs. at 77-5 and 77-6. Therefore, the request to deem the Defendants’ objections waived is DENIED.
C. Requests for Production of Documents
The Plaintiff contends that Requests for Production (“RFP”) Nos. 2, 3. 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, and 29 seek information regarding the Defendants’ revenues and information to identify documents and individuals who may have discoverable information about the alleged infringement. R. Doc. 77-1, p. 4-5.
*4 The Defendants contend that they have produced: (1) BMI royalty statements concerning financial records and revenue; (2) ADA Statements that record revenue through physical sales, digital downloads, and streaming; (3) inside passage statements which record music publishing royalties outside of BMI income; (4) SoundExchange Statements relating to the Defendants’ expenses; (5) participation agreements reflecting the costs related to the songs at issue (which the Defendants indicated would be supplemented with records concerning payments under those agreements); and (6) tour location information. R. Doc. 80, p. 9-10.
During oral arguments, the Plaintiff stated that, as a result of the Defendants’ productions, RFP Nos. 2, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 24, 25, 26, and 27 were satisfied. Therefore, the Court DENIESthese requests as MOOT. The Court will now address the remaining RFPs.
1. RFP Nos. 4, 5, 6, 11, 20, 21, 23, & 29.
The Court found that RFP Nos. 4, 5, 6, 11, 20, 21, 23, and 29 violated the scope of discovery set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. RFP No. 4 sought “any and all documents, which support evidence, or form the basis for your response to any interrogatory filed herewith.” R. Doc. 80-5, p. 6. Moreover, RFP No. 5 sought “any and all documents supporting your response to each allegation contained in the plaintiff’s complaint.” Id. at p. 7. The Defendants objected that these requests were overbroad. The Court sustains the objection. No further response is required to RFPs No. 4 and 5.
RFP No. 6 requests documents that the Defendants plan to use at trial, including a list of witnesses. Id. The Defendants objected that this request was premature. Id. The Court notes that the information sought in this request is governed by the Court’s Scheduling Order. As such, the request to compel a response to RFP. No. 6 is DENIED.
RFP No. 11 requests “any and all correspondence between any of the defendants herein, any retailers, wholesalers and distributors, whether foreign or domestic, or members of the general public concerning or relating or referring to the songs that made subject of this lawsuit.” Id. at p. 11. The Defendants objected that this request was vague, ambiguous, and overbroad. Id. The Court sustains the Defendants’ objection and RFP No. 11 IS DENIED.
RFP No. 20 requests, “a complete copy of your federal and state tax returns filed within the past five (5) years.” Id. at p. 18. The Defendants objected to this request as overbroad, unduly burdensome, and irrelevant. Id. The Court sustains the Defendants’ objections and RFP No. 20 is DENIED.
RFP No. 21 requests, “all license agreements and offer to license the songs that made the song that made the subject of this lawsuit, ‘Thrift Shop,’ ‘Neon Cathedral,’ ‘Can’t Hold Us,” and ‘Need to Know.’ ” The Defendants stated during oral arguments that, since they already provided the Inside Passage Statements (that would refer to the existence of any licenses and revenue received) to the Plaintiff, they didn’t think that the production of the underlying licenses were necessary. The Plaintiff stated that the licensing agreements show the popularity of the songs, and that he wanted the underlying licenses to verify the revenue/financial information that was provided. The Defendants stipulated that the songs were very popular. However, the Defendants stated that, they did not believe that the Plaintiff had anything to do with them. At this time, the Court finds that RFP No. 21 has no bearing on the case and is DENIED based on relevance.
RFP No. 23 requests, “all documents, papers, and materials relating to plaintiff’s copyright registrations as being invalid, defective, or not enforceable.” Id. at p. 20. The Defendants objected stating that this information was already within the Plaintiff’s possession. Id. The Court notes that the information that the Plaintiff requested pertains to the Plaintiff’s own copyright registrations and the information that the Plaintiff used to register the works. Accordingly, the Court sustains the Defendants’ objections and RFP No. 23 is DENIED.
*5 RFP No. 29 requests, “all documents that show defendant has not infringed plaintiff’s copyright registrations.” Id. at p. 24. The Defendants objected that this request was premature and overbroad. Id. The Court sustains the Defendants’ overbreadth objection, and RFP No. 29 is DENIED.
2. RFPs 1, 3, 9, 10, 22, and 28.
The remaining RFP Nos. 1, 3, 9, 10, 22, and 28 seek documents pertaining to royalties paid, escrow deposited, radio play/commercial use, financial statements (profits and loss, net income statements, balance sheets, etc.), expenses for marketing, distribution, and sales, and copyright registrations for the Defendants’ songs “Thrift Shop,” “Neon Cathedral,” “Can’t Hold Us,” and “Need to Know.”
During oral arguments, the Plaintiff admitted receiving BMI royalty statements for Macklemore, LLC and Ryan Lewis, but requested royalty statements for the remaining Defendants (Ben Haggerty, Macklemore Publishing, Andrew Joslyn, Allen Stone, and Stickystones Publishing). The Plaintiff further contended that the BMI statements only produced royalties for the broadcasts of the Defendants’ songs, but that he has nothing regarding the sales.
The Defendants stated that they produced BMI statements of public royalties, as well as Alternate Distribution Alliance records (“ADA records”) that include all streams, downloads, and physical sales. The Defendants further contended that, with respect to the other Defendants, they were contributors to the songs, but not the primary authors. Therefore, anything that the other Defendants receive comes from Macklemore and Ryan Lewis directly and is marked as an expense. Additionally, The Defendants contended that they were putting together an expense sheet and that they would provide the expense sheet along with supplemented responses that clarify whether the royalties of the additional defendants flowed-through Macklemore and Ryan Lewis as expenses.
The Plaintiff also requested copyright registrations for each song. The Defendants replied that they recently discovered that they only have one copyright registration for “Thrift Shop.” The Parties agreed that the Defendants would also provide a supplemented response stating that they only have one copyright registration for “Thrift Shop.”
The Court finds that these agreements are satisfactory. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED with respect to interrogatories 1, 2, 9, 10, 22, and 28, and the Defendants are required provide an expense sheet and supplemented responses stating: (1) the other songs at issue do not have copyright registrations; and (2) whether the royalties of the additional defendants flowed-through Macklemore and Ryan Lewis as expenses by March 28, 2019.
D. The Plaintiff’s Interrogatories
1. Interrogatories 1-8, 10, & 20.
The Plaintiff contends that Interrogatories 1-8 and 20 seek information regarding the sales, costs, and revenue of the alleged infringing songs. R. Doc. 77-1, p. 4. The Defendants objected to each of these, claiming that they were overbroad, unduly burdensome, duplicative of other discovery requests, and not proportional to the needs of the case.
Generally, discovery rules are accorded broad and liberal treatment. Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 176 (1979); See also Mountain States Pipe & Supply Company v. Triton Water Techs., Inc., No. CV 12-2146, 2014 WL 12730976, at *2 (E.D. La. Mar. 26, 2014). However, the Court must limit the frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowed, if it determines: (1) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (2) the party seeking discovery had ample opportunity to obtain the information; or (3) the proposed discovery is outside the scope of Rule 26(b)(1). Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C).
*6 Based on the Defendants’ production of BMI royalty statements, ADA Statements, and Inside Passage Statements, the Court finds that these interrogatories are unreasonably cumulative and duplicative. Moreover, the Court finds that requiring the Defendants to answer these interrogatories would be unduly burdensome and not proportional to the needs of the case. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED with respect to Interrogatories 1-8 and 20.
Interrogatory 10 seeks detailed information regarding the business relationship of the Defendants. R. Doc. 80-4, p. 11. The Defendants objected that this interrogatory was overbroad and unduly burdensome. Id. at p. 12. The Plaintiff avers that the Defendants agreed to produce a supplemented response to Interrogatory 10 at the November 2018 Rule 37 conference. R. Doc. 77-1, p. 1. However, the Defendants argue that they never agreed to produce this information because it was overbroad. R. Doc. 80, p. 12. The Defendants stated that they would merely “take under advisement providing an explanation” for Interrogatory 10 because the Plaintiff could request for a 30(b)(6) deposition and asked detailed questions of a corporate representative. Id. The Court sustains the Defendants’ overbreadth objection, and Interrogatory 10 is DENIED. No further response is required.
2. Interrogatories 15-19.
Regarding Interrogatories 15-19, the Plaintiff contends that he is seeking individuals who may have discoverable information about the infringement that made the basis of this litigation as well as information that would assist the Plaintiff in substantiating his claims. The Plaintiff again emphasizes that the Defendants have failed to produce any copyright registrations and seeks information to identify additional individuals who may be liable to the Plaintiff.
Interrogatory Nos. 15 seeks a list of all people who provided assistance in the creation of the songs at issue. R. Doc. 77-5, p. 15. Apart from the usual objections, the Defendants have provided a list of names of individuals who participated in the creation of those songs through production, editing, orchestration, instrumentation, mixing or mastering. Id. at p. 16. The Court finds that the Defendants have sufficiently answered this interrogatory and Interrogatory 15 is DENIED. No further response is required.
Interrogatory 16 seeks all sources that the Defendants used or studied when preparing the songs at issue and the extent to which the Defendants made use of each source. Id. The Defendants objected that this request was overbroad, unduly burdensome, and duplicative. Id. at p. 17. The Court finds that this interrogatory is overbroad and is not proportional to the needs of the case and Interrogatory 16 is DENIED.
Interrogatory 17 seeks portions of the songs that the Defendants claim they directly authored. Id. Apart from the usual objections, the Defendants claimed that they authored all relevant portions of the songs. Id. at p. 18. The Court finds that the Defendants have sufficiently answered this interrogatory and Interrogatory 17 is DENIED. No further response is required.
Interrogatory 18 seeks identification of all facts, documents, law, and other information supporting the Defendants’ contention that the songs at issue do not constitute a copyright infringement. Id. The Defendants objected that this request was overbroad, unduly burdensome, duplicative, and subject to attorney-client and work-product privilege protections. Id. The Court finds that this request is not proportional to the needs of the case and interrogatory 18 is DENIED.
*7 Interrogatory 19 seeks copyright registration information for the songs at issue. However, given that the Parties agreed that the Defendants would provide a supplemented response for the copyright registrations, Interrogatory 19 is DENIED as MOOT.
3. Verifications for the Interrogatories.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants have not produced their responses or objections under oath, and that without an oath, the Plaintiff is disadvantaged because he cannot determine if defendants have provided all information and documents within his knowledge, control, and possession. The Defendants admit that they have not provided a verification and state that they will do so as promptly as possible. R. Doc. 80, p. 6 n.2. However, as defendants point out, plaintiff also has not provided a Rule 33 verification with his responses to defendants’ interrogatories. Id.; See Id. at 80-6, p.8.
Courts have construed the Rule 33 signing requirement rigidly. Lackey v. SDT Waste & Debris Servs., No. CIV.A. 11-1087, 2013 WL 5772325, at *5 (E.D. La. Oct. 23, 2013). However, “ ‘Rule 33 does not prescribe any particular form of Verification. Either a declaration pursuant to [28 U.S.C. § 1746 or a statement under oath is sufficient.’ ” Lackey, 2013 WL 5772325, at *5 (quoting Zanowic v. Reno, 2000 WL 1376251, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2000)).
Upon review, the Plaintiff’s and the Defendants’ claims are corroborated in that neither party has signed the interrogatories. R. Doc. 77-5. Therefore, since the Plaintiff’s responses and the Defendant’s responses do not meet the requirement of Rule 33, the Parties are required to sign their responses to the interrogatories issued to them, along with their attorneys.
E. The Plaintiff’s Request for Attorney’s Fees
The Plaintiff has also made a request for attorney’s fees incurred in bringing his motion. R. Doc. 77-1, p. 5-6. Rule 37 provides that the Court must not order payment of attorney’s fees if: (1) the movant filed the motion before attempting in good faith to obtain the discovery without court action; (2) the opposing party’s nondisclosure, response, or objection was substantially justified; or (3) other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A).
In determining substantial justification, the Supreme Court has clarified that “substantially justified does not mean ‘justified to a high degree.’ Rather, it means justified in substance, or that there is a genuine dispute.” Covad Commc’ns Co. v. Revonet, Inc., 262 F.R.D. 1, 4 (D.D.C. 2009) (quoting Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 565 (1988)); see Mr. Mudbug, Inc. v. Bloomin’ Brands, Inc., No. CV 15-5265, 2017 WL 448575, at *4 (E.D. La. Feb. 1, 2017).
Here, the Court finds there was no genuine dispute because the Defendants provided most of the Plaintiff’s requested information prior to the filing the motion. The Court notes that these discovery disputes could have been resolved without court intervention. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees is DENIED.
IV. Conclusion
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery Requests (R. Doc. 77), is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART:
(1) IT IS DENIED as MOOT regarding RFP Nos. 2, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 24, 25, 26, and 27.
*8 (2) IT IS DENIED regarding RFP Nos. 4, 5, 6, 11, 20, 21, 23, and 29.
(3) IT IS GRANTED regarding RFP Nos. 1, 3, 9, 10, 22, and 28, and the Defendants are required to provide an expense sheet and supplemented responses stating: (1) the other songs at issue do not have copyright registrations; and (2) whether the royalties of the additional defendants flowed-through Macklemore and Ryan Lewis as expenses by March 28, 2019.
(4) IT IS DENIED regarding the Interrogatories 1-8, 10, and 15-20.
(5) IT IS GRANTED regarding the verifications, and all Parties are required to sign their responses to the interrogatories issued to them, along with their attorneys, (14) fourteen days from the signing of Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 25th day of March 2019.