1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

GREGORY SLATE, Plaintiff,

v. AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANIES, INC., et al. , Defendants. Civil Action No. 09

- 01761 (BAH) Judge Beryl A. Howell

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Gregory Slate appeal s from a n April 18, 2011 Order by the Magistrate Judge denying his Motion to Compel Document Production from defendant American Broadcast 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 defendant s ABC , ABC News Interactive, Inc. ( hereinafter “ ANI ” ) , and Disney/ABC International Television, Inc. are lia ble for copyright infringement and contributory copyright infringement for airing video footage filmed by the plaintiff on the defendant s ’ news show 20/20

. By Minute Order on April 18, 2011 , t he Magistrate Judge to whom this c ase wa s referred for all discovery

- related matters, see Minute O r der dated Feb . 25, 2011 (Howell, J.), denied plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant
ABC ’ s compliance with 21 separate document requests

. Having reviewed th e plaintiff ’ s document requests , the Court concludes that t he Magistrate Judge ’ s decision to deny the plaintiff ’ s motion to compel is not clearly errone ous or contrary to law. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge ’ s April 18, 2011 Minute Order is affirmed.2 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 evid ence the court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’” Graham v. Mukasey, 608 F. Supp. 2d 50 (D.D.C. 2009) (quoting Donohoe v. Bonneville Int ’ l Corp. , 602 F. Supp. 2d 1, 2 (D.D.C. 2009)); see also LCvR 72.2(c) ( “ [A] district judge may modify or set aside any portion of a magistrate judge's order under this Rule found to be clear ly erroneous or contrary to law

. ” )

. II. DISCUSSION In denying the p laintiff’s Motion to Compel, the M agistrate Judge concluded that the plaintiff’s Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Defendant 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 appeal s only the part of the Magistrate Judge’s Order that den ied t he Motion to Compel compliance with 15 of the plaintiff ’ s 21 document request s . 1 P l.’s Objections to Mag. J.’s Order Denying Pl.’s Mot. to Compel Document Production, ECF No 51, Apr. 18, 2011, at 1. These requests fall into f ive separate categories: (1) personnel and employment records for ABC employees ; (2) unrelated allegations of copyright infringement against defendant ABC ; (3) viewership and revenue information related to the alleged infringing n ews broadcast ; (4) defendant ABC ’ s policies r egarding journalistic integrity a nd freelance journalists; and ( 5 )

‘ Missing Receipt Forms ’ filed by ABC employees for reimbursement of expenses. The Court addr esses the relevance of each category of document requests separately.

1 Specific ally, the plaintiff appeals the denial of his motion to compel production i n response to document requests 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.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

. T he plaintiff states that the files “ contain documents evidencing their qualifications, employment/educational histories, as well as disciplinary histories related t o their employment with defendant [that] bea rs directly on their credibility as witnesses in this matter and will help define the scope of the witnesses ’ knowledge

. ” Pl. ’ s Objections to M ag . 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 f inds that this conclusion 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 the plaintiff in the course of their employment does not p rovide a basis for allowing the plaintiff to explore these employee s ’ personnel files, let alone forcing the defendants to produce them

. See Lurensky v. Wellinghoff, 271 F.R.D. 345, 349 (D.D. C. 2010) (denying motion to compel production of potential witnesses’ personnel files); Prof’l Recovery
Servs

. , Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Capital Corp. , No. 06

- cv - 2829, 2009 WL 137326, at *4 (D. N.J. Jan. 15, 2009) (“[P] ersonnel files, even of a party’s agent, may cont ain information that is both private and irrelevant to the case, and [] special care must be taken before personnel files are turned over to an adverse party.” (internal citations omitted)).
B. Unrelated Allegations of Copyright Infringement Document request number 3 seeks all documents and communications from third

- part ies relating to all allegations of copyright infringement by ABC. The Magistrate Judge f ound this request t o be overbroad

. T he plaintiff conten ds that this information could , conceivably , establish a pattern and practice of cop yright infringement , but this assertion is far outside the four4 corners of the Complaint, which is focused on allegations that the defendants infri nged a single work copyrighted by the plaintiff

. M oreover, defendant ABC is a large media and broadcast
company . As the defendant s 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. Docume nt Production, ECF No. 55, at 1 0

. T he plaintiff’s document request is over b road and the burden to produce responsive documents outweighs any
p ossible 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. V iewership and R evenue I nformation
D ocument request number 7 seeks documents relating to the vie wership of 20/20 news broadcast s ; and document request number 19 seeks documents regarding advertising and income

- producing activity related to t he use of the video

- footage u nderlying this copyright dispute . The Court bifurcated discovery in this case into separate liability and damages phase s , limit ing the current phase of 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 corr ectly c oncluded that document request numbers 7 and 19 are improper because they are directed primarily toward the issue of damages.
D. Policies f or Journalistic Integrity and Freelance Journalists
Docum ent request number 14 requests all documents related to policies concerning “journalistic integrity and standards.” The defendant s r epresent that “simply to avoid unnecessary dispute” they explained to the Magistrate Judge that d efendant ABC planned to5 produce the portion of its news policy regarding “ source credibility, which even taking Plaintiff’s arguments at face value is the only conceivab le issue he claims is relevan t.” 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 th e 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 defendant s represent that in response to t his 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 sufficie nt.
E. M issing 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 May 2007 and May 2008. The plaintiff s eeks these documents because an ABC employee completed one Missing Receipts Form without listing the plaintiff’s employer, which plaintiff a rgues supports his assertion that he is a freelance journalist. The defendants s tate that these receipt forms likely do not exist and t he Magistrate Judge conclusion that this information is of minimal relevance to the case is reasonable. 2

III. C O NCLUSION For the forgoing reasons, the Court holds that the Magistrate Judge’s denial of the Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Document Production from Defendant Ame rican Broadcasting

2 The defendants argue that re porter ’ s privilege also bars plaintiff ’ s attempted discovery of these documents, a contention with which the plaintiff disagrees. T he C ourt c oncludes that the plaintiff ’ s req uest for Missing Receipt Forms i s not relevant, and therefore the Court need not discuss the applicability of reporter ’ s privilege in this context.6 Companies, Inc., ECF No. 38, w as not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The Magistrate Judge’s April 18, 2011 Minute Order is therefore AFFIRMED.
S O O R D E R E D

. May 2 7 , 2011 

# Beryl A. Howe ll BERYL A. HO WELL United States District Judge