Slate v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.
802 F. Supp. 2d 22
D.D.C.2011Background
- Slate sued ABC et al. for copyright and contributory infringement arising from airing up to 45 seconds of his video on 20/20.
- Slate sought production of a laptop and an external hard drive from Kamau and the Police Complaint Center under subpoenas.
- Kamau overproduced files (over 100,000) including privileged and confidential material not tailored to the subpoena.
- Defendants sequestered the hard drives and agreed not to use any material from them.
- Magistrate Judge Robinson limited discovery by sequestering the drives and requiring production of only responsive audio-visual materials; plaintiff appealed.
- District court affirmed the magistrate’s order, denying production of sequestered drives as not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the magistrate properly limited discovery under Rule 26(b)(2)(C). | Slate argues defendants lacked standing to privilege third-party material. | Defendants claim burden/benefit balancing supports sequestering overbroad production. | No clear error; discovery limited consistent with Rule 26(b)(2)(C). |
| Whether defendants had authority to withhold or limit access to third-party materials. | Slate contends equal access to discovery materials was denied. | Defendants acted to protect privacy and avoid disclosure of non-responsive/confidential material. | Magistrate’s sequestration permissible; not an abuse of discretion. |
| Whether defendants’ actions prejudiced Slate by cherry-picking materials. | Slate asserts defendants reviewed and shared only favorable items. | Defendants reviewed only a small portion and will not use those materials; they were sequestered. | No prejudice; the court balanced interests and ensured no use of sequestered items. |
| Whether plaintiff has standing to challenge third-party privilege assertions. | Slate argues defendants cannot assert third-party privilege. | Kamau’s overproduction and the court’s sequestration addressed privilege concerns. | Not clearly erroneous; magistrate balanced interests and did not err. |
Key Cases Cited
- Washington v. Thurgood Marshall Academy, 230 F.R.D. 18 (D.D.C. 2005) (subpoena/quash considerations for non-parties)
- Graham v. Mukasey, 608 F. Supp. 2d 50 (D.D.C. 2009) (deference to magistrate decisions; clearly erroneous standard)
- Donohoe v. Bonneville Int'l Corp., 602 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2009) (standard for magistrate review under LCvR 72.2)
- In re Sealed Case (Medical Records), 381 F.3d 1205 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (broad discretion to tailor discovery; balancing interests)
- United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation, 131 S. Ct. 2313 (Supreme Court 2011) (privacy interests; scope of discovery)
- Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20 (Supreme Court 1984) (privacy and discovery rules implicit in Rule 26)
- Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574 (Supreme Court 1998) (context for balancing competing interests in discovery)