Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-02348/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-02348-91/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN AMES BROWN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

STROUD PRODUCTIONS AND 

ENTERPRISES, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

METHVEN & ASSOCIATES 

PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

SCARLETT PARADIES-STROUD, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case No. 08-cv-02348-JSW (MEJ)

ORDER RE: MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 

CONDUCT DISCOVERY 

Re: Dkt. No. 723

Case No. 13-cv-01079-JSW (MEJ)

 Re: Dkt. No. 248

INTRODUCTION

On July 10, 2015, Plaintiff Steven Ames Brown (“Brown”) and the Estate of Nina Simone

(“Simone Estate”) filed a motion to conduct discovery in preparation for the upcoming settlement 

conference, scheduled for August 21, 2015. Brown v. Stroud, Case No. 08-2348, Dkt. No. 723; 

Methven v. Scarlett, Case No. 13-1079, Dkt. No. 248.

1

 The Honorable Jeffrey S. White, the 

presiding judge in these related cases, referred this Motion to the undersigned on July 23, 2015. 

Dkt. No. 729. Sony Music Entertainment (“Sony Music”) and the Orchard Enterprises NY, Inc.

(“Orchard”) jointly filed an Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion on July 24, 2015. Dkt. No. 732. 

Having considered the parties’ arguments, the record in this case, and the relevant legal authority, 

the Court issues the following Order. 

 

1

For ease of reference, and in keeping with the parties’ own citations, the Dkt. Nos. referenced 

herein, unless otherwise noted, correspond to documents in Brown v. Stroud, Case No. 08-2348. 

The same or substantially similar documents are filed in Methven v. Scarlett, Case No. 13-1079.

Case 4:08-cv-02348-JSW Document 734 Filed 07/31/15 Page 1 of 4
2

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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

BACKGROUND

On October 14, 2014, Brown, the Simone Estate, and Sony Music participated in a 

settlement conference before the undersigned, at which time the parties reached a settlement that 

was placed on the record. Dkt. No. 639. Subsequently, Sony Music filed various claims against 

Brown and the Simone Estate. Dkt. No. 679. On May 20, 2015, Brown and the Simone Estate

filed counterclaims. Dkt. No. 688. Among them are claims against Sony Music relating to certain 

activity by its subsidiary, Orchard, which was named as a party to these actions on May 20, 2015, 

and was therefore not a party to the October 14 settlement conference. See id. Orchard has not 

conducted or participated in any discovery to date, and on June 23, 2015, Judge White, upon 

stipulation of the parties, entered an order staying discovery and enlarging the deadline for the 

parties to file responsive pleadings. Dkt. No. 714.

On July 8, 2015, Judge White referred this case to the undersigned “for the purposes of 

conducting a further settlement conference,” which the Court scheduled for August 21, 2015. Dkt. 

Nos. 718, 727. Brown’s Motion argues that “[w]ithout damage discovery from Orchard, the 

prospects of a successful settlement conference would realistically be limited to the issues 

concerning the October 14, 2014 settlement, which did not resolve any of Claimants’ claims 

against Orchard[.]” Mot. at 2. Brown notes that his counterclaims assert that Sony Music 

breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing in their Nina Simone artist agreements by 

operating a wholly owned subsidiary that sells unauthorized Nina Simone recordings. Dkt. No. 

688 at 6-7. He also brought infringement claims against Orchard alleging it is engaged in 

widespread pirating and bootlegging of Nina Simone recordings. Id. at 7-9. Brown asserts he is 

prepared “to meaningfully participate in a settlement conference with respect to the issues 

surrounding the October 14, 2014 settlement agreement,” but also states that “[i]f the Court wishes 

the parties to attempt to resolve all issues and bring an end to these proceedings, Claimants and the 

settlement judge must have basic information relating to Orchard’s exploitation of Nina Simone 

recordings.” Mot. at 3.

In support of his Motion, Brown states in a Declaration: 

To meaningfully prepare to address the claims concerning Orchard’s 

Case 4:08-cv-02348-JSW Document 734 Filed 07/31/15 Page 2 of 4
3

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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

activities at a minimum, for each of the 80+ Nina Simone albums 

that Orchard is currently exploiting I must (a) know the identity of 

each licensor that purportedly granted rights to Orchard, b) have 

copies of the recordings, and (c) a chart . . . that identifies every 

Nina Simone UPC, the name of the corresponding album and any 

individual tracks (listing track numbers if they exist), the name and 

contact details for each client (licensor), the cumulative receipts 

broken out by albums or singles (when not sold as a bundled album), 

stated separately for US and ex‐US, plus the amounts from such 

exploitation retained by Orchard for itself, paid to publishers and 

paid to its clients, since January 1, 2008 to present. 

Brown Decl. ¶ 7, Dkt. No 723. He contends that “[w]ithout at least that information there would 

be no way to calculate or for the parties and Judge James to discuss damages.” Id.

Sony Music and Orchard respond that neither “object per se to the Court granting leave to 

Brown and the Simone Estate to conduct targeted and limited discovery of The Orchard prior to 

the further settlement conference, so long as that discovery is narrowly focused on information 

that would, in fact, best position the parties to reach resolution at the settlement conference.” 

Opp’n at 2. However, they note that in Brown’s Motion, “the scope of discovery sought is 

completely undefined, and such an order potentially expose[s] The Orchard to anything and 

everything.” Id. at 3. They contend that the “descriptions are so vague that it is impossible for 

The Orchard, or, for that matter, the Court to divine what exactly is being sought here,” and argue 

that to the extent Brown’s Declaration indicates the type of discovery he intends to request, these 

requests are “overreaching” and “borders on harassing.” Id. In the alternative, they propose

discovery of the following:

1. A list of the Nina Simone recordings that The Orchard is 

currently exploiting that it licensed through Andrew Stroud, 

Andrew Stroud, Inc., or Stroud Productions and Enterprises, 

Inc. (if any); 

2. Income from exploitation of those recordings; and 

3. Limited to the time from July 2012 to the present.

Id. at 4. They propose that such discovery “should be subject to the limitation that these 

documents be produced as they are kept in the usual course of business, and that The Orchard’s 

production of documents be limited to responsive documents that The Orchard has in its 

possession, custody, or control.” Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 34). They further request that Orchard 

Case 4:08-cv-02348-JSW Document 734 Filed 07/31/15 Page 3 of 4
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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

by provided with sufficient time to respond to such discovery and that production should be 

subject to a stipulated protective order. Id.

Following receipt of the parties’ briefing, the undersigned issued an Order moving the 

settlement conference to September 2, 2015. Dkt. No. 733. 

ORDER

As an initial matter, the Court clarifies its intent and order that Orchard must attend the 

settlement conference. Given that Orchard’s presence is required, the Court agrees that Brown 

should be able to obtain discovery from Orchard for the limited purpose of preparing for 

settlement. Sony Music and Orchard’s response indicates their agreement to produce such limited 

discovery, and accordingly, the Court ORDERS Orchard to produce a list of the Nina Simone 

recordings that it is currently exploiting that it licensed through Andrew Stroud, Andrew Stroud, 

Inc., or Stroud Productions and Enterprises, Inc. (if any), as well as materials documenting what 

income it receives from the exploitation of those records. This discovery is subject to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 34 and limited to materials relevant to the time period of July 2012 to the 

present. Orchard must produce this discovery by August 14, 2015.

Otherwise, although Brown’s Declaration indicates he hopes to discover other materials, 

his Motion itself does not provide specific requests for discovery. Accordingly, in the event that 

the discovery ordered above does not provide Brown with sufficient information for him to 

prepare for the settlement conference, he may seek that information from Orchard via properly 

noticed discovery requests. Such requests must be made by August 7, 2015 to give Orchard time 

to respond. If there are any disputes regarding those requests, the parties are ordered to comply 

with the undersigned’s Standing Order on Discovery. Additionally, if a dispute arises, the parties 

are ordered to meet and confer by telephone or in person within one week of that dispute. All 

discovery disputes must be filed no later than August 26, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 31, 2015

______________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:08-cv-02348-JSW Document 734 Filed 07/31/15 Page 4 of 4