Case Information
*1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GREGORY SLATE,
Plaintiff,
v. Civil Action No. 09-01761 (BAH) Judge Beryl A. Howell AMERICAN BROADCASTING
COMPANIES, INC., et al. ,
Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Gregory Slate appeals from an April 18, 2011 Order by the Magistrate Judge denying his Motion to Compel Document Production from defendant American Broаdcast Companies, Inc. (hereinafter “ABC”), ECF No. 38, in response to the plaintiff’s Second Request for Production of Documents. In this case, the plaintiff alleges that defendants ABC, ABC News Interactive, Inc. (hereinafter “ANI”), and Disney/ABC International Television, Inc. are liable for copyright infringement and contributory copyright infringement for airing video footage filmеd by the plaintiff on the defendants’ news show 20/20. By Minute Order on April 18, 2011, the Magistrate Judge to whom this case was referred for all discovery-related matters, see Minute Order dated Feb. 25, 2011 (Howell, J.), deniеd plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant ABC’s compliance with 21 separate document requests. Having reviewed the plaintiff’s document requests, the Court concludes thаt the Magistrate Judge’s decision to deny the plaintiff’s motion to compel is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge’s April 18, 2011 Minute Order is affirmеd.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
“A magistrate judge’s decision is entitled to great deference unless it is clearly erroneous
or contrary to law, ‘that is, if on the entire evidence the court is left with the definitе and firm
conviction that a mistake has been committed.’”
Graham v. Mukasey,
II. DISCUSSION
In denying the plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, the Magistrate Judge concluded that the plaintiff’s Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Dеfendant ABC, Inc. are not relevant matters for discovery. See F ED . R. C IV . P. 26(b)(2)(C) (requiring court to limit discovery when “the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit”). The plaintiff appeals only the part of the Magistrate Judge’s Order that denied the Motion to Compel compliance with 15 of the plaintiff’s 21 document requests. [1] Pl.’s Objections to Mаg. J.’s Order Denying Pl.’s Mot. to Compel Document Production, ECF No 51, Apr. 18, 2011, at 1. These requests fall into five separate categories: (1) personnel and employment records for ABC еmployees; (2) unrelated allegations of copyright infringement against defendant ABC; (3) viewership and revenue information related to the alleged infringing news broadcast; (4) defendant ABC’s policies regarding journalistic integrity and freelance journalists; and (5) ‘Missing Receipt Forms’ filed by ABC employees for reimbursement of expenses. The Court addresses the relevance of each category of document requests separately.
*3
A. Personnel and Employment Records for ABC Employees
Document request numbers 1, 2, 4, 6, 10, 11, 12, and 16 seek the personnel and
employment-related files of eight current and former ABC employees. The plaintiff states that
the files “contain documents evidencing their qualifications, employment/educational histories,
as well as disciplinary histories related to their employment with defendant [that] bears directly
on their credibility as witnesses in this matter and will help define the scope of the witnesses’
knowledge.” Pl.’s Objections to Mag. J.’s Order, ECF No. 51, at 6. The Magistrate Judge,
however, concluded that the information was not relevant to the plaintiff’s copyright
infringement claim, and the Court finds that this сonclusion is well supported in the law and not
clearly erroneous given the factual allegations in this case. The simple fact that ABC employees
interacted with thе plaintiff in the course of their employment does not provide a basis for
allowing the plaintiff to explore these employees’ personnel files, let alonе forcing the
defendants to produce them
. See Lurensky v. Wellinghoff,
B. Unrelated Allegations of Copyright Infringement
Document request number 3 seeks all documents and communications from third-parties relating to all allegations of copyright infringement by ABC. The Magistrate Judge found this request to be overbroad. The plaintiff contends that this information could, conceivably, establish a pattern and practice of copyright infringement, but this assertion is far outside the four *4 corners of the Complaint, which is focused on allegations that the defendants infringed a single work copyrighted by the plаintiff. Moreover, defendant ABC is a large media and broadcast company. As the defendants state, “[t]o try to identify all [copyright infringement] complaints, not to mention all legal files for every actual copyright infringement suit ABC has ever litigated, would be an absurdly Herculean task.” Defs.’ Opp’n to Pl.’s Objections to Mag. J. Minute Order Denying Pl.’s Mot. to Compel. Document Production, ECF No. 55, at 10. The plaintiff’s document request is overbroad and the burden to produce responsive documents outweighs any possible relevance the information may have to these proceedings. See F ED . R. C IV . P. 26(b)(2)(C) (requiring court to limit discovery when “the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit”).
C. Viewership and Revenue Information
Document request number 7 seeks documents relating to the viewership of 20/20 news broadcasts; and document request number 19 seeks documents regarding advertising and income-producing activity related to the use of the video-footage underlying this copyright dispute. The Court bifurcated discovery in this case into separate liability and damages phases, limiting the current phase оf discovery to evidence of the defendants’ potential liability. See Minute Order dated Feb. 25, 2011 (Howell, J.); Scheduling Order, ECF No. 10, Dec. 8, 2009 (Sullivan, J.). The Magistrate Judge therefore correctly concluded that document request numbers 7 and 19 are improper because they are directed primarily toward the issue of damages.
D. Policies for Journalistic Integrity and Freelance Journalists Document request number 14 requests all documents related to policies concerning “journalistic integrity and standards.” The defendants represent that “simply tо avoid unnecessary dispute” they explained to the Magistrate Judge that defendant ABC planned to *5 produce the portion of its news policy regarding “source credibility, which even taking Plaintiff’s arguments at face value is the only conceivable issue he claims is relevant.” Defs.’ Opp’n to Pl.’s Objections to Mag. J. Minute Order Denying Pl.’s Mot. to Compel. Document Production, ECF No. 55, at 13. The Magistrate Judge reasonably concluded that this information was sufficient and the relevance of the remainder of the plaintiff’s document request was minimal.
Document request number 15 seeks “all documents related to ABC’s policies relating to third-party freelancers and outside contractors.” The defendants represent that in response to this request defendant ABC produced, inter alia , “a nearly 400-page labor agreement that sets forth in detail policies, procedures and terms by which freelancers perform[] all manner of tasks.” Id. at 15. The Magistrate Judge reasonably concluded that this production was sufficient.
E. Missing Receipt Forms
Document requests 17 and 18 seek copies of “each and every ‘Missing Receipts Form’” filed by a specific ABC employee and “each and every ‘Missing Receipts Form’” filed in connection with 20/20 broadcasts between Mаy 2007 and May 2008. The plaintiff seeks these documents because an ABC employee completed one Missing Receipts Form without listing the plaintiff’s employer, which plaintiff argues supports his assertion that he is a freelance journalist. The defendants state that these receipt forms likely do not exist and the Magistrate Judge conclusion that this information is of minimal relevance to the case is reasonable. [2]
III. CONCLUSION
For the forgoing reasons, the Court holds that the Magistrate Judge’s denial of the Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Doсument Production from Defendant American Broadcasting *6 Companies, Inc., ECF No. 38, was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The Magistrate Judge’s April 18, 2011 Minute Order is therefore AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED .
May 27, 2011
Beryl A. Howell BERYL A. HOWELL United States District Judge
Notes
[1] Specifically, the plaintiff appeals the denial of his motion to compel production in response to document requеsts 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 of plaintiff’s Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Defendant ABC, Inc.
[2] The defendants argue that reporter’s privilege also bars plaintiff’s attempted discovery of these documents, a contention with which the plaintiff disagrees. The Court concludes that the plaintiff’s request for Missing Receipt Forms is not relevant, and therefore the Court need not discuss the applicability of reporter’s privilege in this context.