Rock River Communications, Inc. v. Universal Music Group, Inc.
730 F.3d 1060
9th Cir.2013Background
- Rock River licensed 16 early Bob Marley recordings from San Juan Music Group and created an album of 12 remixes, distributed digitally and physically and with a planned film placement.
- UMG sent cease-and-desist letters in 2007 claiming exclusive licensing rights to the underlying recordings (asserting a 2003 purchase from JAD Records), and contacted Rock River’s distributors and partners, leading to pulled distribution and lost opportunities.
- Rock River sued UMG for, among other claims, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage (IIPEA); the district court dismissed other claims and ultimately granted summary judgment to UMG on IIPEA after excluding hearsay testimony supporting an oral license for three disputed tracks.
- Key factual dispute: whether San Juan had (including by oral license from Lee Perry) nonexclusive rights to three tracks that Rock River used; documentary chains of title for these early recordings are incomplete and contested.
- UMG defended both by arguing (1) Rock River could not prove a valid, legal business expectancy (an element of IIPEA) and (2) Noerr-Pennington immunity for pre‑litigation communications; the Ninth Circuit reviewed both contentions on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether validity/legality of plaintiff’s business expectancy is an element of IIPEA under California law | Rock River: plaintiff need only prove an economic relationship and disruption; validity is not an element of plaintiff’s case-in-chief | UMG: plaintiff must prove expectancy was lawful/valid (otherwise no liability for interfering with an illegal expectancy) | Court: Illegality is an affirmative defense for defendant to plead and prove; validity is not an element plaintiff must prove to survive summary judgment |
| Whether Rock River produced enough evidence that San Juan had authority to license the three disputed tracks | Rock River: affidavits from Lee Perry and long course of San Juan licensing create a triable issue; oral nonexclusive licenses are permissible | UMG: lack of documentary chain of title and exclusion of hearsay testimony means Rock River has no admissible proof for the three tracks | Court: Evidence (Perry affidavits, San Juan’s long licensing history and accounting) suffices to create a triable issue; remand for trial |
| Whether UMG’s cease-and-desist communications are protected by Noerr-Pennington immunity | Rock River: UMG’s communications were a sham — objectively baseless and an effort to use process to interfere | UMG: acted in good faith based on JAD contract and thus entitled to immunity | Court: Triable issues exist on both prongs of the sham exception (UMG knew gaps in its chain of title and collaborated with San Juan units); summary judgment on immunity was not appropriate |
| Whether UMG implicitly waived attorney–client privilege by asserting Noerr-Pennington | Rock River: asserting Noerr-Pennington places good-faith litigation inquiry at issue, implying waiver | UMG: Noerr-Pennington defense does not automatically put privileged communications at issue | Held: No implicit waiver; district court did not abuse discretion by declining in camera review absent a stronger factual showing |
Key Cases Cited
- Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc., 508 U.S. 49 (1993) (defines "sham" litigation exception to Noerr‑Pennington)
- Oregon Natural Desert Ass'n v. Mohla, 944 F.2d 531 (9th Cir. 1991) (Noerr‑Pennington immunity principles)
- Sosa v. DIRECTV, Inc., 437 F.3d 923 (9th Cir. 2006) (Noerr‑Pennington and sham litigation discussion)
- Clipper Exxpress v. Rocky Mountain Motor Tariff Bureau, Inc., 690 F.2d 1240 (9th Cir. 1982) (sham exception is a fact question precluding summary judgment where disputed)
- Washington Capitols Basketball Club, Inc. v. Barry, 419 F.2d 472 (9th Cir. 1969) (illegality of contract is an affirmative defense and defendant bears burden of proof)
- United Mine Workers v. Pennington, 381 U.S. 657 (1965) (foundational Noerr‑Pennington precedent)
- Eastern R.R. Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc., 365 U.S. 127 (1961) (foundational Noerr‑Pennington precedent)