08-5043 -cv

Pyatt v . Je an UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT S UM M ARY OR DER
RUL I NGS BY SUM M A R Y O R D ER D O NO T H A V E PREC EDEN TI A L EFFEC T. CI TATI ON TO S UM M ARY O R D E R S F ILE D A F T E R JA N U A R Y 1, 20 0 7 , IS P E R M ITT E D A N D I S G O V E R N E D B Y T H IS C O U R T ’S LO C A L RU LE 32 . 1 AN D FED ERA L RU LE O F AP PELLA TE PRO C EDU R E 32 . 1. I N A B R I EF O R O TH ER P A P E R I N WH I C H A L I T I G A N T C I T E S A S U M M A R Y O R D E R , I N E A C H P A R A G R A P H I N WH I C H A C I T A T I ON A P P E A R S , A T L E A S T ON E C I T A T I ON M U S T E I T HE R BE T O T HE F E D E R A L A P P E N D I X OR BE ACCOM PA NI E D BY T HE NOT AT I ON: “ ( S UM M ARY ORDE R) . ” A PA RT Y CI T I NG A S UM M ARY O R D E R M U S T S E R V E A C O P Y O F T H A T S U M M A R Y O R D E R T O G E T H E R W IT H T H E P A P E R IN W H I C H TH E S U M M A R Y O R D ER I S C I T E D O N AN Y PAR TY N O T REPR ESENTED BY CO U N SEL U N L E S S T H E S U M M A R Y O R D E R IS A V A IL A B L E IN A N E L E C T R O N IC D A T A B A S E W H IC H IS PU BL I CL Y ACC E S S I BL E W I T HO UT P AYM E NT OF F E E ( S UCH AS T HE DA T ABAS E AVAI L ABL E AT H TTP: / / W W W . C A 2. U SCO U R TS. GO V / ) . I F NO C O PY I S SERV ED B Y REA SO N O F TH E AV A I LAB I LI TY OF T HE ORDE R ON S UCH A DAT ABAS E , T HE CI T ATI O N M U ST I N CL UDE RE FE RE NCE T O THAT DAT ABAS E AND T HE DOCKET NUM BE R OF T HE CA S E I N W HI CH THE ORDE R W AS E NT E RE D. A ta s t at ed t erm of t he U ni t ed St at es C our t of A ppeal s fort he Second Ci r cui t , hel d at t he D ani el Pat r i ck M oyni han U ni t ed St at es C our t hous e, 500 Pear l St r eet , i n t he C i t yof N ew Y or k, on t he 23 dayof D ece m ber , t w o t hous and ni ne. rd P RES ENT : RALP H K. W I NTE R,

R E E N A R A G G I, DE BR A ANN L I VI NGS T ON,

C i r cui tJudges
.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- W AD ENA PYA TT, P l ai nt i f f

- C ount er - D ef

endant

-Appel l ant , v. N o. 08- 5043- cv W Y C L E F JE A N , JE R R Y D U P L E S S IS , S O N Y M U S IC EN TER TA I N M EN T, I N C. , CO LU M BI A RE CO RD S, S O N Y /A T V T U N E S , L L C , H U S S Z W IN G L I P U B L IS H IN G , IN C .,

D ef endant s -Appel l ees .

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- --- --- - A P P E A R I N G F O R A P P E L L A N T : F R A N K A
. D E L L E D O N N E , M onaco & M onaco, L L P, B r ookl yn, N ew Y or k. APPEARI NG FOR APP ELLEES : D O R O T H Y M
. W E B E R , Shukat A r r ow Haf er W e ber & H erbsm an, L L P (J ud i t h A
. M ey ers , Shu ka tA r r ow H a fe rW e be r& H e rbs man, LLP,2 N ew Y ork, N ew Y ork, M i chael G
. W i l l i am s, F re e p o rt , N e w Y o rk , on the br i ef ) , N ew Y or k, N ew Y or k.
A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtfo r th e E astern D is tr ic t o f N ew Y o rk (T h o m a s C . P la tt, Judge ). UP ON DUE CO NS I DE RA T I ON, I T I S HE RE BY OR DE RE D, ADJ UDGE D, AND DE CR E E D th a tt h e d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s Oc t o b e r3 , 2 0 0 8 j u d g me n ti s AF F I RMED
. W adena Py at tappea l s fr om a fi nal j udgm ent , entered af tera j ur yt r i al atw hi ch s he p ro c e e d e d p r o s e , in f

a v o r o f d e f e n d a n ts o n h e r c o p yrig h t in f rin g e m e n t cla im . O n a p p e a l, P y attch all en g es v ariou s d isco v eryan d ev iden ti aryruli n g s. W e re v iew a d istri ct co u rt’s di s coveryrul i ngs , i ncl udi ng t he deni al of a mot i on for s anct i ons , and i t s evi dent i aryrul i ngs fo r a b u se o f d iscreti o n , see In re A g en t O ran g e P rod
. L iab. L it ig., 5 1 7 F
. 3 d 7 6 , 1 0 2 (2d C ir
. 2008) ; Shcherbakovs ki yv. D a C apo A l Fi ne, L t d. , 490 F. 3d 130, 135 ( 2d C i r . 2007) ; M el off

v. N
. Y. Li f

e I n s . Co. , 2 4 0 F. 3 d 1 3 8 , 1 4 8 ( 2 d Ci r . 2 0 0 1 ) , a n d we wi l l n o t g r a n t a n e w t r i al

u n less erro r af

fe cts a su b stan ti al ri g h t, see A rl io v
. L ively , 4 7 4 F
. 3 d 4 6 , 5 1 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 7 ). In a p p ly ing thes e st an d ard s, w e a ssu m e the p arti es’ f am il iari tyw ith the f

ac ts an d the re co rd

o f p r i o rp r o c e e d i n g s , wh i c h we r e f e r e n c e o n l y a s n e c e s s a r y t o e x p l a i n o u r d e c i s i o n t o a f f i r m. 1. D i s coverySanct i ons P y a tt su b m its th a t th e d istric t c o u rt e rre d in re f u sin g to sa n c tio n d e f

e n d a n ts f o r th e ir “cont i nual fai l ur e” t o compl yw i t h a M ar ch 28, 2008 di s coveryor der
. A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at58. W e di s agr ee. T he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s M ar ch 28, 2008 or der , i s s ued ata pr etr i al confe r ence , di r ect ed3

defe ndant s t o compl yw i t h anynon- fi nanci al di s covery req u est s cont ai ned i n a l i s tof out s t andi ng di s covery s ubm i t t ed byPy at t
. T he or derdi d notm ake a nyfi ndi ngs w i t h r es pect to th e e x iste n c e o r n o n e x iste n c e o f th e e v id e n c e re q u e ste d , n o r d id it i m p o se o n d e f e n d a n ts an obl i gat i on t o pr oduce s peci fi c mat er i al
. O n J ul y9, 2008, t he di s t r i ctcour thel d a hea r i ng
a t w h ich it ad d re ss e d P y a tt’s c laim th a t ce rta in e v id e n c e h a d b e e n d e stro y e d o r im p ro p e rly

w ith h eld. A lth o u g h d ef en d an ts h a d p ro v ided w ri tt en resp o n ses to all o f P y att ’s disco v ery
r eques t s i n acc or dance w i t h t he M ar ch 2008 orde r , i n s om e i ns t ance s t hei rr es pons e w as t hat theyco u ld n o t l o ca te an yd o cu m en ts r esp o n sive to the req u est. T h e d istri ct co u rt acknow l edged Py at t ’ s conce r n t hat cert ai n document s appea r ed t o be mi s s i ng, butconcl uded t hat unl ess Py at tcou l d p rove t hat defend ants had dest roy ed or w i t hh el d specifi c do cum ents ,
s he w as bound bydefe ndant s ’ ans w er s and t hei ri nabi l i t yt o pr oduce w hatt heydi d nothave. Py at ts ubm i t t ed no s uch pr oof t o t he di s t r i ctcour t , nordo t he por t i ons of tr i al t es t i m onys he ci t es on appea l dem ons t r at e thatdefe ndant s unl aw ful l ydes t r oy ed orw i t hhel d evi dence
. A ccor di ngl y , w e i dent ify n o abus e of di s cr et i on i n t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s r efus al t o s anct i on d e f e n d a n ts
. 2. E vi dent i aryC hal l enges
a. Py at t ’ s T es t i m ony P y a tt co n ten d s th a t th e d istric t co u rt e rre d in p re c lu d in g h e r f ro m tes tify in g a t trial, t her ebypr event i ng h er from “s i ng[i ng] att r i al t he uni que mel odi c l yr i cal chorus
com binat i on s com m on t o [the songs at i ssue or]
. . . i nd i cat [i ng ] m usi cal l y a s d e f e nd ants appel l ees di d. ” A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at 55. C ont r ary t o Py at t ’ s cl ai m s , a thor ough r evi ew of the4

r ecor d i ndi cat es t hat s he w as ful l y appr i s ed of her r i ght t o t es t i fy butdecl i ned t o do s o. See T ri al T r. at 1 0 6 (“A n d [P y att ] ca n take the w itn ess s tand , h erse lf, if sh e w ishe s to d o so . ”); i d. at 603 ( “TH E C O U R T : Y ou can’ t i nt r oduce t hi s as an exhi bi t , as s uch, unl es s y ou t ake t he w i t nes s s t and. M S. PY A T T : O kay
. T hat ’ s fi ne. I have enough w i t h t he t es t i m onyt hat

w as m ade. ”) ; i d. at 833- 34 ( “TH E C O U R T : I have t o t ake the compl ai nt , y ourcompl ai nty ou fi l ed, fort he court , couns el , and the j ur yt o s ee. D o y ou w antt o t es t i fyt o s om ethi ng di ffe r ent ? Y ou have t o geton t he s t and and t es t i fyt o i t
. B utw e ar e notgoi ng t o r eopen the

e n tire c a se . M S . P Y A T T : N o . O n lyb a c k g ro u n d . It w a s o n ly a little typ o e rro r. I th in k it

w as a ti n yerro r in m yd ep o sit ion
. ”); see a lso id. at 57 6

– 8 1 (reserv ing d ec isi o n o n P y att ’s

r i ghtt o t es t i fyt o perm i t defe ndant s t o br i ef i s s ue, but not i ng t hat “unl es s [def endant s had]

so m e re ce n t auth o rityo n the s u b ject,
. . . [th e c o u rtw o u ld] h av e to re ce ive [ P y att ’s te s tim o n y ]” ). A l t hough Py at tatone poi ntadvi s ed the courtt hat sh e w ishe d t o pr ovi de t es t i m ony th a t w o u ld c o m p a re th e stru c tu ra l an d m e lo d ica l ele m e n ts of th e so n g s at iss u e , d e f e n d a n ts
o b jec ted to th e a d m iss io n o f su c h tes tim o n yo n th e g ro u n d th a t P y a tt w a s n o t an e x p e rt w ith in t he meaning o f D au ber tv. M err el l D ow Phar m ace ut i cal s , I nc. , 509 U
. S. 579 ( 1993)
. See T ri a l T r . a t 6 6 8 -6 9 . T h e d istric t co u rt a p p e a rs to h a v e su sta in e d th e o b jec tio n , su b

jec t to Py at t ’ s r i ghtt o pr es enta qual i fi ed expe r tdur i ng herr ebut t al cas e. See Tri al T r . at669- 73. A s Py at t does notcont end – norcoul d s he cont end – thats he i s an expe r tw i t hi n t he meani ng
o f D a u b e rt , w e p e rc e iv e n o a b u s e o f d is c re tio n o n th e s e f

a c ts
.A lth o u g h P y a tt a lso c o n ten d s tha t th e d istric t co u rt e rre d in f a ili n g to c o n su lt F in e ll 1 vi a t el econf

er ence w hen det erm i ni ng w hetherdefe nd ant s ’ al l eged de s t ruct i on of r el evant e v id e n c e m e rited sa n c tio n s, th e re c o rd m a k e s c lea r th a t d e f e n d a n ts o f

f e re d to p e rm it P y a tt to te le p h o n e F in e ll, b u t s h e d e c lin e d to d o s o . 5 b. Fi nel l ’ s E xper tT es t i m ony Py at tar gues t hatt he di s t r i ctcour tabus ed i t s d i s cr et i on i n fai l i ng t o cons i deran
a f f i d a v i ts u b mi tt e d b y h e r e x p e r t , J u d i t h F i n e l l
. Th e r e c o r d d o e s n o t s u p p o r t s u c h a c l a i m. W hi l e Py at tci t es a M ay20, 2009 aff i davi ti n w h ic h Fi nel l purpor t s t o have s ubm i t t ed an

a f f id a v it an d e x p e r t r e p o rt p rio r to trial, th e re c o rd re v e a ls n o in sta n c e in w h ich P y a tt
a ttem p ted to in tro d u c e th e a f f id a v it a t tr ia l b u t w a s p re c lu d e d f ro m d o in g so . N o r d o e s it sh o w that the d istri ct co u rtp rec lud ed F inell fro m te s tify ing
. R athe r, the d istri ct co u rt

r epea t edl yadvi s ed Py at tt hats he had the r i ghtt o cal l Fi nel l as an exper t
. W hen t he t i m e for Fi nel l t o t es t i fyarr i ved, how ever , Py at t i ndi cat ed t hat Fi nel l w as notpr epar ed t o go forw ar d. A l t ho u g h Py a t t c i t e d d e f e n d a n t s ’ f

a i l u r e t o p r o d u c e r e l e v a n t d i s c o v e r y a s t h e c a us e of F inell’ s u n p rep are d n ess, fo r th e re aso n s d iscu ssed ab o v e, w e co n clud e that the d istri ct co u rt
ac ted w ell w ith in it s d iscreti o n in f ind ing that d ef

en d an ts h ad sati sfied all relev an t disco v ery obl i gat i ons . U ndert hes e circu m s t ance s , Py at t ’ s chal l enge r es pect i ng Fi nel l ’ s evi dence necessari l yfai l s. 1

c. Fer r ar a’ s E xper tT es t i m ony P y at targues t hat t h e d istri ctcou rterr ed in adm i t t i ng t he tes t i m on yof d efen dan t s’

ex p e r t , La wr e n c e Fe r r a r a , a s d e f e n d a n t s f a i l e d t i me l yt o s e r v e Fe r r a r a ’ s e x p e r tr e p o r ta nd F e rr a ra ’s te s tim o n ye x c e e d e d th e s c o p e o f th e re p o rt . W e a re n o t p e rs u a d e d
. A p a rt f ro m h e r ow n c o n c lu so ry a lleg a tio n s, th e o n ly e v id e n c e c it e d b y P y a tt6

s ugges t i ng t hat defe ndant s s erved t hei rexpertr epor t“fourm ont hs ” af t ert he court - appoi nt ed d e a d lin e is F e rra ra ’s d e c lar a tio n o f N o v e m b e r 1 0 , 2 0 0 5 , in d ica tin g so m e w h a t am b ig u o u sly t hat“[m]yi ni t i al r epor t , dat ed A ugus t16, 2005, has been s ubm i t t ed i n t hi s cas e” butal s o t hat “[ t] h e R ep o rt is su b m itted [a s an att ac h m en t t o a f il ing ] da ted N o v em b er 1 1 , 2 0 0 5
. ” F errara D ecl
. ¶ 2 ( N ovember 10, 2005)
. E ven as s um i ng t hatt he r epor tw as nots ubm i t t ed unt i l t he l at t erdat e, i ti s not cl ear t hat i t w as l at e, as t he di s t r i ct cour t i s s ued an or der on A ugus t17, 2005, s t ay i ng pr oduct i on of Ferr ar a’ s r epor t at t he re ques t of t he def endant s . M or eover , even if the rep o rt w as lat e, a s P y attco n tend s, itw o u ld sti ll h av e b ee n p rod u ce d alm o st th ree y ea rs befor e tr i al comm ence d. Py at t can har dl ycl ai m t hats he w as pr ej udi ced byanydel ay . See W o l a k v . S p u c c i , 2 1 7 F
. 3 d 1 5 7 , 1 6 1 ( 2 d C i r . 2 0 0 0 ) ( n o t i n g p r e j u d i c e p r o p e r l yi n f

o r ms d e c is io n to p re c lu d e b e la te d e x p e rt e v id e n c e ). P y a tt’s c laim th a t F e rra ra ’s te stim o n ye x c e e d e d th e sc o p e o f h is e x p e rt re p o rt is

e q u a llyu n a v a il in g . I n id e n tify in g th e m a ter ials th a t h e re v iew e d in c o n n e c tio n w ith h is anal y s i s , Fer r ar a ci t ed “a comm er ci al l y r el eas ed D V D ent i t l ed, W y cl ef J ean: A l l St arJ am at C arn e g i e Hal l , . . . wi t h a v e r s i o n o f ‘ Two W r o n g s ’ a s s c e n e 1 6 e n t i t l e d ‘ O ur Song’ per for m ed w it h E ri c C l apt on and att ache d t o t hi s R epor tas A udi o E xhi bi tC
. ” R epor tof L aw r ence Ferr ar a, Ph. D
. , at2- 3 ( A ugus t16, 2005)
. A l t hough Fer r ar a r efe r s t o t he s ong per for m ed byJ ean a nd C l apt o n as “M ySong” i n t he por t i on of t es t i m onychal l enged by Py at t , ourr evi ew of t he re cor d i ndi cat es t hat Fer r ar a’ s t es t i m onyr egar di ng t he s t ructur e of th a t so n g a n d th e lik e ly e x ten t o f Je a n a n d C lap to n ’s p re p a ra tio n f o r i ts p e rf

o rm a n c e w a s w e ll

w i t hi n t he s cope of hi s expert r epor t
. I n any event , beca us e P y at t fai l ed t o r ai s e thi s obj ect i on7

a t trial, ev e n if

w e a ss u m e d a rg u e n d o th a t F e rra ra ’s te stim o n ye x c e e d e d th e sc o p e o f h is

re p o rt, o u r re v iew w o u ld b e lim ited to “ p lain e rro r a f f e c tin g su b sta n tia l r ig h ts th a t g o e s to th e v e ry e ss e n c e o f th e c a se .” A n d e rso n v . B ra n e n , 1 7 F .3 d 5 5 2 , 5 5 6 (2 d C ir. 1 9 9 4 ). T h is is n o t s u c h a n e rr o r.

d. M as quer ade CD L i nerN ot es Py at tas s er t s t hat t he di s t r i ct cour terr ed i n pr ecl udi ng ques t i oni ng r egar di ng t he l i ner not es for t he M as quer ade C D , as t he not es connec tdefe ndant s J ean a nd W i l l i ams, t endi ng t o pr ove ac ces s . T hi s arg u m enti s w i t houtm er i t
. T he r ecor d demonst r at es t hatt he M as quer ade CD w as admi t t ed i nt o evi dence as P l ai nt i ff’ s E xhi bi t2, t hatt he l i nernot es cont ai ned i n t he C D w er e mar ked for i dent i fi cat i on, and t hatPy at ther s el f ques t i oned thr ee
w i t nes s es about t he not es . I n atl eas tt w o i ns t ance s , t he w i t nes s es w er e ei t heras ked t o r ead fr om t he l i ner not es orw er e ques t i oned aboutt hei rcont ent s . See Tri al T r . at157- 58, 555. A ccor di ngl y , anycl ai m t hatP y att w as pr ecl uded fr om el i ci t i ng t es t i m onyaboutt he M a sq u e ra d e C D lin e r n o tes m u st f a il. 3. C oncl us i on W e have cons i der ed Py at t ’ s r emai ni ng ar gum ent s and conc l ude thatt heyar e w i t hout

m e ri t. F o r t h e f

o re g o in g re a s o n s , th e ju d g m e n t o f th e d is tr ic t c o u rt is A F F IR M E D
. FOR TH E CO UR T: C A T H E R IN E O ’H A G A N W O L F E , C lerk o f C o u rt
B y :