A&E Television Networks, LLC v. Big Fish Entertainment, LLC, 1:22-cv-07411

The case involves a discovery dispute in a copyright action between A&E Television Networks, LLC (AETN, with Hearst as a joint venture partner) and Big Fish Entertainment LLC and related defendants.
Defendants served a document subpoena on non-party Hearst seeking documents about AETN’s decision to cancel "Live PD" and related matters.
Hearst objected to the subpoena, asserting procedural defects, undue burden, and redundancy, and did not produce documents.
Defendants moved to compel Hearst’s production after fact discovery closed, focusing their request on board minutes and executive emails over discrete periods.
The court considered Hearst’s procedural defenses, the timeliness of the motion, and whether the narrowed request imposed an undue burden.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of Motion to Compel	Motion is untimely; discovery ended	Recent expert discovery justifies delay	Motion not dismissed as untimely
Procedural Defects (local rules compliance)	Motion violates local rules	Rules should be excused for relevance	Excused procedural noncompliance in this instance
Waiver of Objections by Hearst	Timely objections via email served	No consent to email; objections not received	No waiver; Hearst's objections recognized
Undue Burden of Discovery on Non-Party	Requests are duplicative, burdensome	Narrowed request is not unduly burdensome	Court finds limited requests not unduly burdensome; orders production

Richardson v. City of N.Y., 326 F. App’x 580 (2d Cir. 2009) (untimely motions to compel after discovery cut-off properly denied)
Concord Boat Corp. v. Brunswick Corp., 169 F.R.D. 44 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (undue burden standard for non-party discovery; distinguishes when discovery is not unduly burdensome)
Gucci Am., Inc. v. Guess?, Inc., 790 F. Supp. 2d 136 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (party must establish good cause for post-discovery motions to compel)