Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-07727/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-07727-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 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

27

28

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

GRATEFUL DEAD PRODUCTIONS, 

et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

WILLIAM E. SAGAN, et al.

Defendants. __________________________________

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS

__________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C-06-07727 JW (PVT)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs Grateful Dead Productions, Cadestansa LLC, a limited liability company on

behalf of Carlos Santana, Jimmy Page, Robert Plant, John Paul Jones, Raymond Manzarek,

Robby Krieger, John Densmore, Pearl Courson and George Morrison, Fantality Corporation,

Sony BMG Music Entertainment, BMG Music and Arista Records (collectively “plaintiffs”)

move to compel defendants William E. Sagan, Norton LLC and Bill Graham Archives d/b/a

Wolfgang’s Vault (collectively “defendants”) to produce non-privileged documents responsive

to 87 document requests and to provide complete and verified responses to interrogatories as

Case 5:06-cv-07727-JW Document 128 Filed 10/22/07 Page 1 of 9
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 1 The holding of this court is limited to the facts and particular circumstances

underlying the present motion.

ORDER, page 2

agreed by the parties pursuant to a July 19, 2007 interim order. Defendants oppose the motion. 

On October 19, 2007, the parties appeared for hearing. Having reviewed the papers and

considered the arguments of counsel and for the reasons set forth below, plaintiffs’ motion to

compel is granted in part and denied in part.1

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Carlos Santana, Jimmy Page, Robert Plant, John Paul Jones, Raymond

Manzarek, Robby Krieger, John Densmore, Pearl Courson and George Morrison are renowned

recording and musical artists in the rock and roll music genre. Plaintiffs Grateful Dead

Productions, Cadestansa LLC, Fantality Corporation, Sony BMG Music Entertainment, BMG

Music and Arista Records own and administer the intellectual property rights for these various

artists. Before these musical artists gained widespread fame in rock and roll history, Bill

Graham promoted them at noted concert venues such as The Fillmore, Fillmore West,

Winterland and Fillmore East during the 1960s. Indeed, Bill Graham added his own imprimatur

to the numerous concerts he promoted by providing fans and concert-goers with free posters and

bowls of apples. Bill Graham’s company, Bill Graham Presents, undertook the significant

responsibility of promoting the various artists and their concerts and entered into agreements

with each of them to promote and organize concerts and tours, in exchange for a percentage of

ticket revenues. As part of their effort to facilitate Bill Graham’s promotional duties of each of

them, the various artists granted his company a license to use their names, likenesses, trademarks

and other intellectual property for promotional items, including concert posters, tickets, handbills

and photographs of the various artists. Other miscellaneous items bearing the various artists’

intellectual property included t-shirts, magnets, key chains, mugs, cardboard cut-outs, calendars

and folders. (“swag”). In light of his expansive career as a concert promoter that spanned more

than thirty years, Bill Graham amassed a vast collection of promotional concert items which he

stored in a warehouse. The warehouse also contained thousands of tapes of live concert

performances of the various musical artists he had promoted. Apparently, these audio and video

Case 5:06-cv-07727-JW Document 128 Filed 10/22/07 Page 2 of 9
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

ORDER, page 3

recordings of concerts were never publicized or sold to the public.

In 1991, Bill Graham died in a helicopter crash. His estate sold the company Bill

Graham Presents to SFX Entertainment, which was later acquired by Clear Channel

Entertainment. Individual defendant William E. Sagan eventually purchased the archives of Bill

Graham Presents from Clear Channel Entertainment and continued to purchase additional

materials that featured plaintiffs’ names, likenesses, photographs and other intellectual property

without their approval.

Plaintiffs complain that defendants currently own and operate a website known as

<www.wolfgangsvault.com> that sells and profits from the use of plaintiffs’ names, voices,

musical performances, photographs, likenesses, trademarks and other intellectual property. The

website purports to sell vintage and reproduced promotional merchandise of plaintiffs. The

promotional merchandise includes, but is not limited to, concert posters, serigraphs, handbills,

postcards, photographs, apparel and various other swag. In addition, the website features

plaintiffs’ names, voices, musical performances, photographs, likenesses and trademarks to

advertise and promote the sale of the merchandise. Defendants have not obtained permission

from plaintiffs to advertise, reproduce or sell any of the archival or other promotional items

previously owned by Bill Graham Presents. Plaintiffs complain that defendants are exploiting

plaintiffs’ fame for improper gain and that defendants’ products and services confuse consumers

into believing that they have been sponsored or otherwise endorsed by plaintiffs. As a result of

their unsuccessful efforts to prevent further unauthorized conduct by defendants, on December

18, 2006 plaintiffs filed an action alleging violations of the Lanham Act, trademark

counterfeiting and dilution, bootlegging, copyright infringement and other state law claims. 

On September 11, 2007, plaintiffs filed a second motion to compel. On September 18,

2007, defendants filed their opposition and on September 25, 2007, plaintiffs filed their reply. 

Case 5:06-cv-07727-JW Document 128 Filed 10/22/07 Page 3 of 9
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

 2 Plaintiffs’ first set of document requests included 87 document requests. 

Defendants originally objected to 54 of these requests. Following extensive meet and confer

efforts, the parties narrowed the disputed document requests to 17 requests. Therefore, it was

these 17 document requests that were the subject of the hearing before the court. 

ORDER, page 4

DISCUSSION

I. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Further Production

Initially, plaintiffs had moved to compel defendants to produce documents responsive to

17 requests for production.2

 At a hearing held before this court on July 10, 2007, defendants

agreed to produce documents responsive to at least 15 of these disputed document requests. 

Plaintiffs now complain that defendants have not produced documents they had previously

agreed to produce and seek a firm deadline for production of those documents. Plaintiffs further

complain that defendants have not produced all of the documents responsive to the first set of

document requests which totals 87 document requests. For example, plaintiffs allege that

defendants have not produced critical documents relating to, inter alia, negotiations or

communications with third parties concerning intellectual property rights, agreements between

plaintiffs and defendants’ predecessors-in- interest, royalty payments made to Sound Exchange

and many, many other relevant documents. Indeed, plaintiffs outline in their moving papers

numerous and representative examples of defendants’ glaring deficiencies of production. See,

e.g., Plaintiffs’ Second Motion to Compel, ppgs. 8-11. Finally, plaintiffs complain that they

have been severely prejudiced by the delinquent production and their prosecution has been

hampered by defendants’ ongoing and “classic stonewalling” tactics.

 Defendants argue that they have engaged in “substantial efforts” to produce documents

responsive to the document requests. To that end, defendants have produced more than 10,000

documents. Defendants further argue that representative examples of scant production identified

in plaintiffs’ moving papers contain numerous misstatements and mischaracterizations of the

documents produced and that production has merely encompassed documents sought by

plaintiffs’ own requests for production. Given the substantial number of documents and requests

for production involved, defendants argue that production has been diligent and ongoing.

Prior to the commencement of the July 10, 2007 hearing, defendants had already agreed

Case 5:06-cv-07727-JW Document 128 Filed 10/22/07 Page 4 of 9
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

 3 During the hearing, the parties agreed that production by Sony BMG artists would

be limited to sound recordings and not merchandise. In response to document request no. 41,

defendants had agreed to produce copies of sound recordings that had been copied, streamed or

licensed. With respect to document request nos. 48 and 49, plaintiffs agreed to exclude cease

and desist letters to and from defendants which relate to copyrights involving artwork or

photographs. With respect to document request no. 42, plaintiffs agreed to the production of

paper copies of the alleged infringing merchandise. With respect to document request no. 89,

plaintiffs agreed to obtain the information from an interrogatory response. See, July 10, 2007

Hearing Tr. 27:10-25; 28:1-25.

 4 At the October 19, 2007 hearing, plaintiffs alleged that defendants failed to

respond to certain interrogatories that they had previously agreed to respond to at the July 10,

2007 hearing. Representative examples include, but are not limited to, document requests no. 41

and 89. To the extent that defendants have not complied with their July 10, 2007 agreement to

respond to document request nos. 41 and 89 as interrogatories, plaintiffs shall inform defendants

whether the discovery requests they now seek are document requests or interrogatories. 

Regardless of whether the discovery requests are identified as document requests or

interrogatories, plaintiffs’ motion to compel these discovery requests is granted. 

ORDER, page 5

to produce documents responsive to at least 72 of the document requests set forth in plaintiffs’

first set of document requests. At the July 10, 2007 hearing, plaintiffs withdrew document

request no. 1 and defendants agreed to produce documents responsive to document request nos.

22, 33, 41, 42, 48, 49, 50, 53, 54, 55, 61, 65, 70, 76 and 89 subject to certain limitations set forth

on the record.3

 As defendants have already agreed to produce responsive documents, plaintiffs’

motion to compel production is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiffs had previously

withdrawn document request no. 1 and essentially withdrew document request no. 89 by their

waiver of production of documents and agreement to obtain the information by interrogatory. 

However, plaintiffs complained at the October 19, 2007 hearing that defendants had not honored

their agreement to provide certain discovery in interrogatory responses. Accordingly, plaintiffs’

motion to compel production of documents responsive to document requests other than

document request nos. 1 (and the two other document requests, which defendants did not accede

to at the hearing) is granted. Defendants shall produce all responsive and electronic documents

no later than October 26, 2007.4

 

II. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Further and Verified Interrogatory Responses

Plaintiffs further move to compel defendants to provide substantive and verified

interrogatory responses. On June 28, 2007, the court filed an interim order requiring the parties

to meet and confer to determine an agreed upon number of interrogatories and a proposed

Case 5:06-cv-07727-JW Document 128 Filed 10/22/07 Page 5 of 9
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

ORDER, page 6

manner for calculating the number of interrogatories propounded by each party (including a

proposal of how the interrogatories already served should be counted). Pursuant to the interim

order, the parties filed a joint proposal and set forth the specific terms of their agreement as

follows:

1. Defendants agreed to provide substantive responses to plaintiffs’ interrogatories

(as modified by plaintiffs’ July 8, 2007 letter) no later than August 22, 2007;

2. Parties agreed that each party may propound 100 interrogatories. In the event, the

court determined that plaintiffs’ previously propounded interrogatories had

already exceeded 100 interrogatories, defendants were permitted to propound a

comparable number of interrogatories in excess of 100 interrogatories so that each

side was allowed to propound an equal number of interrogatories;

3. The parties agreed that an interrogatory directed to, or seeking information

concerning, some or all of plaintiffs or some or all of defendants shall be deemed

one interrogatory. The term “plaintiffs and/or musical artists” would be deemed

to be one entity for purposes of responding to discovery; 

4. The parties agreed that each discrete subpart contained in an interrogatory would

be deemed to be a separate interrogatory. An explanatory phrase or example that

operates to clarify a broader category of information sought should not be deemed

a discrete subpart, whereas phrases that broaden, expand, or add new categories to

the scope of an interrogatory should be deemed separate interrogatories; and

5. The parties agreed to the manner of counting interrogatory nos. 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 19-27

previously propounded by plaintiffs.

Joint Proposal Pursuant to Interim Order re Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel filed on July 19, 2007. 

(the “joint proposal”). However, the parties disagreed to the manner of counting interrogatory

nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 10-18 propounded by plaintiffs. Plaintiffs assert they have propounded 68

interrogatories and defendants contend that plaintiffs have propounded 145 interrogatories.

As an initial matter, the court adopts terms 2-5 set forth above and in the July 19, 2007

joint proposal agreed to by the parties.

Case 5:06-cv-07727-JW Document 128 Filed 10/22/07 Page 6 of 9
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

ORDER, page 7

Rule 33 counts each interrogatory and “all discrete subparts.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a). 

“Parties cannot evade this presumptive limitation through the device of joining as ‘subparts’

questions that seek information about discrete separate subjects.” Advisory Committee Notes of

1993 to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33. A court “construed the term ‘discrete subparts’ as meaning that

‘interrogatory subparts are to be counted as one interrogatory . . . if they are logically or factually

subsumed within and necessarily related to the primary question.’” Safeco of America v.

Rawstron, 181 F.R.D. 441, 445 (C.D. Ca. 1998)(internal citations omitted). Other courts have

found that where the question is independent of the other and can “stand alone,” it is not

subsumed by the first question and can be counted as a separate interrogatory. See, e.g., Kendall

v. GES Exposition Services, Inc., 174 F.R.D. 684, 686 (D. Nev. 1997). Indeed in this district, a

court found that a single interrogatory that sought information about 26 accused products

counted as 26 discrete subparts. Collaboration Properties, Inc. v. Polycom, Inc., 224 F.R.D. 473

(N.D. Ca. 2004). 

As such, the court counts the disputed interrogatories as follows:

1. Interrogatory no. 1 includes six discrete subparts as they have been identified by

plaintiffs in their July 19, 2007 Separate Proposal and counts as six interrogatories; 

2 Interrogatory no. 3 counts as a single interrogatory;

3. Interrogatory no. 4 includes five discrete subparts as they have been identified by

plaintiffs in their July 19, 2007 Separate Proposal and counts as five interrogatories;

4. Interrogatory no. 5 includes six discrete subparts as they have been identified by

defendants in their July 19, 2007 Proposal and counts as six interrogatories; 

5. Interrogatory no. 10 includes five discrete subparts, three of which are the

subparts identified by plaintiffs in their July 19, 2007 Separate Proposal and two additional

subparts for the two mediums (sound recordings and audiovisual recordings) as identified by

defendants in their July 19, 2007 Proposal and counts as five interrogatories; 

6. Interrogatory no. 11 includes two discrete subparts, one for each medium (sound

recordings and audiovisual recordings) and counts as two interrogatories; 

7. Interrogatory no. 12 includes two discrete subparts as identified by defendants in

Case 5:06-cv-07727-JW Document 128 Filed 10/22/07 Page 7 of 9
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

ORDER, page 8

their July 19, 2007 Proposal and counts as two interrogatories;

8. Interrogatory no. 13 includes four discrete subparts as identified by defendants in

their July 19, 2007 Proposal and counts as four interrogatories; 

9. Interrogatory no. 14 includes two discrete subparts for the two mediums (sound

recordings and audiovisual recordings) and counts as two interrogatories;

10. Interrogatory no. 15 includes two discrete subparts as identified by plaintiffs in

their July 19, 2007 Separate Proposal and counts as two interrogatories;

11. Interrogatory no. 16 counts as a single interrogatory;

12: Interrogatory no. 17 counts as a single interrogatory; and 

13. Interrogatory no. 18 counts as a single interrogatory. 

In sum, disputed interrogatory nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 10-18 total 38 interrogatories propounded by

plaintiffs. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion to compel further and verified responses is granted. 

Defendants shall serve complete and verified responses to interrogatories no later than October

26, 2007.

III. Discovery Status Conference

In addition to hearing plaintiffs’ motion to compel, the court had previously ordered that

the parties appear for a discovery status conference on October 19, 2007. During the hearing,

the parties raised further discovery matters and the court now rules as follows:

(1) Defendants shall produce the discovery set forth above on a rolling basis with the

entire production to be completed no later than October 26, 2007;

(2) Parties shall meet and confer with technical experts and determine whether copies

of original audio and/or video recordings (in possession of defendants and

responsive to certain requests for production) may be made without the spoliation

of evidence. Parties are to submit briefs on their respective positions no later than

November 1, 2007;

(3) Parties shall further brief their respective positions regarding plaintiffs’ motion to

stay further discovery related to defendants’ counterclaims in the action. The

briefs shall be no longer than 5 pages and shall be due no later than November 1,

Case 5:06-cv-07727-JW Document 128 Filed 10/22/07 Page 8 of 9
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

ORDER, page 9

2007; and

(4) Plaintiffs’ motion for additional time to depose defendant William Sagan is

dismissed without prejudice as premature.

The parties shall appear for a further discovery status conference on November 2, 2007 and are

both allowed to raise any pending discovery issues. As the court noted during the hearing and in

prior orders, the parties are urged to extensively meet and confer in advance of the court hearing

and are cautioned that unreasonable conduct may be sanctionable. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 22, 2007

____________________________

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:06-cv-07727-JW Document 128 Filed 10/22/07 Page 9 of 9