Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02322/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02322-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:501 Copyright Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH FACULTY, NO. CIV.S-05-2322 GEB DAD

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

NBTY, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

This matter came before the court on November 17, 2006, for

hearing on defendants NBTY, Inc. and Rexall Sundown, Inc.’s motion to

compel further production of documents and answers to interrogatories

from plaintiff Therapeutic Research Faculty. Seth Berlin appeared on

behalf of plaintiff. Gabriel Green appeared on behalf of defendants. 

Having considered all written materials submitted in connection with

the motion, and after hearing oral argument from the parties at some

length, the court ruled from the bench with respect to all but one of

the discovery requests that were the subject of defendants’ motion. 

With respect to Document Request No. 41, the court took the motion

Case 2:05-cv-02322-GEB-DAD Document 71 Filed 11/21/06 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

under submission. Accordingly, below the court addresses the merits

of Request No. 41 before setting froth the summary order on

defendants’ motion.

Defendants’ Request No. 41 seeks all documents related to

“enforcement actions, including but not limited to lawsuits filed or

contemplated, investigations, settlement agreements, and/or cease and

desist actions, taken by Plaintiff” relating to the publications at

issue in this action. (Joint Statement at 29.) Defendants seek such

documents to support their affirmative defense of copyright misuse by

plaintiff. However, aside from the self-serving assertion that

“Plaintiff has now twice attempted to misuse its copyright(s) to

extort additional licensing fees from Defendants” (Joint Statement at

30), at this stage of the proceedings defendants have made no showing

of a connection between plaintiff’s alleged anticompetitive conduct

and any restraint on defendants’ creative expression. See MetroGoldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., --- F. Supp. 2d ----,

2006 WL 2806882, *24-29 (C.D. Cal. 2006)(denying Rule 56(f) request

to conduct discovery on copyright misuse affirmative defense because

“a litany of vague allegations of anticompetitive conduct” did not

establish a “sufficient nexus” with the public policy of promoting

invention and creative expression to implicate the misuse defense);

Video Pipeline, Inc. v. Buena Vista Home Entertainment, Inc., 192 F.

Supp. 2d 321, 346 (D. N.J. 2002) (“anti-competitive actions [such as

retail price squeezes, raising costs through licensing provisions,

refusals to deal, and exclusive dealing] are not alleged here such

that this Court is compelled to allow further discovery”). While the

Case 2:05-cv-02322-GEB-DAD Document 71 Filed 11/21/06 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

court makes no comment regarding the ultimate merit of defendants’

affirmative defense, it cannot grant this broad request for discovery

in the total absence of such a showing at this point in the case.

Additionally, plaintiff has represented to the court that

“this action is the first instance in [its] twenty-two year history

that it has filed a lawsuit against a subscriber.” (Joint Statement

at 38.) Thus, there are no documents to be discovered regarding

“lawsuits filed.” Plaintiff admittedly has confidentially resolved

excessive license use issues with other subscribers short of

litigation. However, the court is not inclined to order disclosure

of those confidential settlement agreements in light of the privilege

relating to settlement discussions. See Cook v. Yellow, Freight

Sys., Inc., 132 F.R.D. 548, 554 (E.D. Cal. 1990) (denying motion to

compel discovery of settlement-related documents), overruled on other

grounds by Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996). No other documents

responsive to defendants’ request have been identified by either

side. For all of these reasons, the motion to compel as to Request

No. 41 will be denied.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above with respect

to Request No. 41, and for the reasons discussed more fully on the

record at the hearing regarding the other discovery requests, IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ motion to compel is granted in part and

denied in part.

2. As to Document Request Nos. 2, 3 and 10, the motion is

granted with respect to the 1999 copyright certificate referred to in

Case 2:05-cv-02322-GEB-DAD Document 71 Filed 11/21/06 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

4

the parties’ joint statement regarding discovery dispute. The motion

is otherwise denied as to these requests. 

3. As to Document Request Nos. 9, 28, 31 and 40, the

motion is denied.

4. As to Document Request No. 41, the motion is denied. 

5. As to Document Request Nos. 11, 15 and 39, the motion

is denied.

6. As to Document Request Nos. 22, 42 and 43, the motion

is denied.

7. As to Document Request No. 8, the motion is denied.

8. As to Interrogatory No. 8, the motion is denied.

9. Plaintiff shall comply with the terms of this order

within two weeks.

10. The parties’ requests for sanctions are denied.

DATED: November 20, 2006.

DAD:th

Ddad1\orders.civil\therapeutic.oah.111706

Case 2:05-cv-02322-GEB-DAD Document 71 Filed 11/21/06 Page 4 of 4