EXHIBIT E 

Case: 1:20-cv-03678 Document #: 50-5 Filed: 08/20/21 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:424
MELONI & MCCAFFREY

A Professional Corporation

ATTORNEYS AT L A W

3 Columbus Circle | 1 5 th Floor 

N ew York , N ew York 100 19

Telephone : ( 212) 520 - 6 0 9 0

Facsimile : ( 917) 210 - 3758

www.m2lawgroup . com

 Robert S. Meloni Writer’s Direct Telephone: (917) 331-9556

Thomas P. McCaffrey Writer’s Email: rmeloni@m2lawgroup.com 

 

August 19, 2021

By email: RPDarke@duanemorris.com

Richard P. Darke, Esq.

Duane Morris

190 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3700

Chicago, IL 60603-3433

Re: Heard, et al. v. Trax Records, Inc. et al. [Case No. 20-cv-03678 SJC/SRH]

Dear Richard:

We are in receipt of Defendants’ production in response to Plaintiffs’ First Request For 

Documents. Because that production is deficient in many critical respects, this letter is being sent in 

a good-faith effort to eliminate the necessity for filing a motion to compel. 

General Standards

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b) provides that parties may obtain discovery regarding any

nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of 

the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, 

the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the 

discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery 

outweighs its likely benefit.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Relevant information “need not be admissible in evidence to be 

discoverable.” Id. 

“The scope of relevant discovery is broad: ‘Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope 

of discovery is as follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is 

relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case ....’” Lukis v. 

Whitepages Inc., 19 C 4871, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78453, *41 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 23. 2021) (quoting

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)). Information need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable. Id. For 

that reason, information may be relevant under Civil Rule 26 even if it would not be admissible at 

trial under Evidence Rule 401. Id. “Admissibility at trial is not the test. Evidence is relevant in a 

discovery context if it is relevant to the subject matter of the litigation as Rule 26(b)(1) states, not 

Case: 1:20-cv-03678 Document #: 50-5 Filed: 08/20/21 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:425
Richard P. Darke, Esq.

August 19, 2021

Page 2 

just the particular issues presented in the pleadings.” Eggleston v. Chi. Journeymen Plumbers' Loc. 

Union No. 130, 657 F.2d 890, 903 (7th Cir. 1981).

Moreover, Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a party to move to compel 

disclosure and for sanctions where “a party fails to produce documents or fails to respond that 

inspections will be permitted—or fails to permit inspection—as requested under Rule 34.” Cohn v. 

Guaranteed Rate, Inc., 318 F.R.D. 350, 353 (N.D. Ill. 2016) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 

37(a)(3)(B)(iv)). An “evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response must be treated as a 

failure to disclose, answer, or respond.” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(4)). Finally, The Court 

also has broad, inherent power to impose sanctions for failure to produce discovery and for 

destruction of evidence, over and above the provisions of the Federal Rules. Id.

DOCUMENT PRODUCTION

Defendants’ most recent document production is woefully deficient. Plaintiffs requested 

production, inter alia, of the following categories of documents:

4. Documents pursuant to which Defendants exploited Musical Compositions.

5. Documents pursuant to which Defendants exploited Sound Recordings.

6. Documents pursuant to which Defendants authorized any Person to exploit any Musical 

Compositions.

7. Documents pursuant to which Defendants authorized any Person to exploit any Sound 

Recordings.

* * * * *

16. All agreements, licenses and documents, including all attachments and modifications, 

pursuant to which any Defendants, authorized and/or licensed third parties to use, publish 

or otherwise exploit the Musical Compositions, including without limitation, and such 

agreements with Casablanca Records.

17. All agreements, licenses and documents, including all attachments and modifications, 

pursuant to which any Defendants, authorized and/or licensed third parties to use, publish 

or otherwise exploit the Musical Compositions, including without limitation, and such 

agreements with Casablanca Records.

18. Documents sufficient to show the sale, licensing, distribution or other exploitation of the 

Musical Compositions by Casablanca Records and/or Casablanca Trax, Inc. 

19. Documents sufficient to show the sale, licensing, distribution or other exploitation of the 

Sound Recordings by Demon Music Group. 

20. Documents sufficient to show the s sale, licensing, distribution or other exploitation of the 

Case: 1:20-cv-03678 Document #: 50-5 Filed: 08/20/21 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:426
Richard P. Darke, Esq.

August 19, 2021

Page 3 

Musical Compositions by Demon Music Group. 

21. Documents sufficient to show the sale, licensing, distribution or other exploitation the 

Sound Recordings by any other Person.

See Plaintiffs’ First Request For Documents, ⁋⁋4-7, 16-21.

On July 21, 2021, Defendants Trax Records, Inc. and Rachael Cain filed a Third-Party 

Plaintiffs’ Complaint Against Casablanca Trax Inc. For A Declaratory Judgment and Other Relief

(Doc # 42) (hereinafter “TPC”). 

In said TPC, Defendants make references to the existence of the following documents in 

allegations subject to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11:

1. Trax Music Catalogue. (TPC, ⁋5);

2. Demon License Agreement. (Id. ⁋6);

3. 2012 Settlement Agreement (Id., ⁋8);

4. 2002 Joint Venture Agreement (Id., ⁋16);

5. 2004 Amendment to Joint Venture Agreement (Id.);

6. 2005 Judgment (Id., ⁋17);

7. 2006 Purchase of Master Recordings and Trax Music Catalogue under the UCC (Id., 

⁋18); and 

8. 2007 Casablanca/Demon Music Group License Agreement (Id. ⁋19).

These eight documents are directly responsive to one or more of the above-referenced document 

requests. The very fact that they are referred to in the TPC, is a concession of their relevance to the 

main action.

Plaintiffs have reviewed the documents produced thus far by Defendants and cannot locate any 

of the eight documents referred to in the TPC. If you have produced them, please provide us with 

the specific bates numbers associated with each document in the order set forth above. If you have 

not produced them, we demand that you provide them to us in unredacted form immediately.

Should you refuse to produce those documents, I am available to meet and confer over your

refusal to fully comply with Plaintiffs First Request For Documents on today or tomorrow. Please let

me know which day you prefer and what times you are available. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03678 Document #: 50-5 Filed: 08/20/21 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:427
Richard P. Darke, Esq.

August 19, 2021

Page 4 

Nothing contained herein shall constitute a waiver of Plaintiffs’ claims, rights, and remedies, all 

of which are expressly reserved.

Sincerely, 

MELONI & McCAFFREY

A Professional Corporation

By: _____________________________ 

Robert S. Meloni

cc: Christopher Heintskill, Esq. 

Thomas McCaffrey, Esq.

Case: 1:20-cv-03678 Document #: 50-5 Filed: 08/20/21 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:428