American Federation of Musicians v. Skodam Films, LLC
313 F.R.D. 39
N.D. Tex.2015Background
- AFM (plaintiff) served a Rule 45 subpoena on non-party SKODAM Films seeking 51 categories of documents about the production and scoring of the film Same Kind of Different as Me; service was proper.
- AFM alleges Paramount breached a collective-bargaining agreement by not scoring the film in the U.S./Canada and claims Paramount was a producer; Paramount contends Skodam was the producer.
- Skodam responded with boilerplate objections asserting overbreadth, undue burden, privilege, confidentiality, and insufficient time to comply; parties met and conferred but did not resolve scope.
- AFM moved to compel full compliance; Skodam opposed, provided an affidavit quantifying potentially voluminous responsive materials (contracts, receipts, emails) and argued production would be costly and burdensome.
- The magistrate judge found the subpoena facially overbroad and unduly burdensome as drafted, narrowed the subpoena to five targeted categories focused on (1) scoring, (2) communications among Skodam/Paramount/Disruption and composers, (3) org charts re: Skodam–Paramount/Disruption, (4) roles of Paramount/Disruption in production, and (5) financial arrangements among those entities; denied full enforcement.
- The court required Skodam to assert privilege/work-product claims via Rule 45(e)(2) procedure, protected proprietary documents under the existing protective order (with notice before public filing), declined to quash the subpoena, and ordered AFM to pay Skodam's reasonable attorneys' fees for defending the motion to compel under Rule 45(d)(1); parties to confer on deadlines and fee amount.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness/waiver of Skodam's objections under Rule 45(d)(2)(B) | AFM: Skodam's objections were untimely and boilerplate, so waived. | Skodam: objections were served but general; meet-and-confer followed; unusual circumstances excuse any waiver. | Court: Treated objections as not waived given subpoena's facial overbreadth and unusual circumstances; general boilerplate objections are improper, but waiver excused here. |
| Overbreadth and undue burden of the subpoena | AFM: Requests are relevant and proportional to test whether Paramount was a producer; Skodam is single-purpose entity so burden is limited. | Skodam: 51 broad requests sweep voluminous documents (contracts, ~50k pages of receipts, >24k emails), many irrelevant; collection and review would be costly. | Court: Subpoena facially overbroad; modified and narrowed requests to five targeted categories; denied compelling full production. |
| Privilege and proprietary/confidential materials | AFM: Skodam must log any privileged withholdings and may designate confidential material under the protective order. | Skodam: Broad requests will inevitably capture privileged/proprietary materials requiring review; seeks additional protection/notice before public filing. | Court: No waiver of privilege; Skodam must follow Rule 45(e)(2) privilege-log procedure; protective order applies and AFM/Paramount must give notice before public filing of Skodam documents. |
| Costs/fee-shifting and reasonable time to comply | AFM: No fee award; it offered extensions and took reasonable steps; seeks its fees under Rule 37 (not applicable). | Skodam: Seeks fee-shifting under Rule 45(d)(1) because AFM failed to reasonably limit burden and served in inconvenient forum. | Court: Declined broad cost-shifting; awarded Skodam reasonable attorneys' fees incurred defending the motion under Rule 45(d)(1) because AFM failed to reasonably narrow the subpoena pre-filing; parties must confer on fee amount and deadline for production. |
Key Cases Cited
- Isenberg v. Chase Bank USA, N.A., 661 F. Supp. 2d 627 (N.D. Tex. 2009) (Rule 45 governs subpoenas to nonparties and timeliness/waiver of objections)
- Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 392 F.3d 812 (5th Cir. 2004) (standards for undue burden/overbreadth for nonparty subpoenas and preference for modification over quashing)
- Heller v. City of Dallas, 303 F.R.D. 466 (N.D. Tex. 2014) (boilerplate objections are insufficient; specificity required for privilege/work-product assertions)
- Williams v. City of Dallas, 178 F.R.D. 103 (N.D. Tex. 1998) (discussion of waiver and privilege assertions in subpoena context)
- DeGeer v. Gillis, 755 F. Supp. 2d 909 (N.D. Ill. 2010) (fee-shifting and remedies for nonparty subpoena compliance; contempt as remedy)
- Concord Boat Corp. v. Brunswick Corp., 169 F.R.D. 44 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (failure to timely move to quash generally results in waiver; exceptions when subpoena is facially overbroad)
- Tollett v. City of Kemah, 285 F.3d 357 (5th Cir. 2002) (lodestar method for calculating attorney's fees)