United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Paisley Park Enterprises, Inc. and Comerica Bank & Trust, N.A. as Personal Representative for the Estate of Prince Rogers Nelson, Plaintiffs,
George Ian Boxill, Rogue Music Alliance, LLC, Deliverance, LLC, David Staley, Gabriel Solomon Wilson, Brown & Rosen, LLC and Sidebar Legal, PC, Defendants,
Mitchell Friedemann and Anne R. Rondoni Tavernier, Fredrikson
& Byron, (for Plaintiffs);
Allen Godfread, (for Defendants George Ian Boxill, Rogue
Music Alliance, LLC, Deliverance, LLC, David Staley, and
Gabriel Solomon Wilson);
Gregory Simpson, Meagher & Geer, PLLP, (for Defendant
Brown and Rosen LLC); and
appearance by or on behalf of Sidebar Legal PC.
N. Leung United States Magistrate Judge
matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion to
Compel Discovery from Sidebar Legal, PC (ECF No. 417). For
the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant in part and
deny in part the motion.
Comerica Bank & Trust, N.A. is the personal
representative for the estate of the late internationally
known musician Prince Rogers Nelson (“Prince” and
“Prince Estate”). Third Amend. Compl. ¶ 2
(ECF No. 262). The Prince Estate owns Plaintiff Paisley Park
Enterprises, Inc. Id. The Prince Estate has an
interest in various songs created by Prince, including those
not released to the public. Id. at ¶ 3.
April 14, 2017, Plaintiffs filed suit in state court against
Defendant George Ian Boxill, a sound engineer who worked with
Prince previously, alleging that Boxill took tracks of
certain songs that he worked on with Prince and that Boxill
edited, and released those songs without the Prince
Estate's permission. (ECF No. 2, p. 3-5). Boxill removed
the lawsuit to federal court on April 18, 2017. (ECF No. 1).
Plaintiffs later filed an amended complaint in which they
named Sidebar Legal, PC (“Sidebar”) as a
defendant. Third Amend. Compl. ¶ 18 (ECF No. 262).
Plaintiffs allege that Sidebar induced, encouraged,
contributed to, and materially participated in the
infringement of the Prince Estate's intellectual property
and tortuously interfered with a confidentiality agreement
between Prince and Boxill. Id. at ¶ 25.
Sidebar's CEO, sole corporate officer, and its registered
agent for service of process is Matthew Wilson. (ECF No.
421-4, p. 60).
attempted to serve the complaint and a document subpoena on
Sidebar at its registered business address of 890 Cypress
Avenue, Redding, California 96001. (ECF No. 421-4, pp. 60,
92). Sidebar also lists this address as its business address
on its website. (ECF No. 421-4, p. 57). Plaintiffs
discovered, however, that Sidebar no longer operates at this
address. (ECF No. 421-4, p. 92).
then contacted Wilson by e-mail and asked that he provide an
updated address for Sidebar. (ECF No. 421-4, p. 92). Wilson
did not respond to the e-mail. (ECF No. 421, p. 4).
Plaintiffs then located Wilson's home address and served
the complaint on him there. (ECF No. 326). Sidebar did not
answer the complaint and was found to be in default. (ECF No.
entry of default, Plaintiffs issued a revised subpoena for
the production of documents to Sidebar, asking it to produce
those documents at a law firm in Redding. (ECF No. 421-1, pp.
1-9). Because Sidebar still had not updated its registered
address, Plaintiffs again served the subpoena on Wilson at
his home address. (ECF No. 421-4, p. 94). Approximately two
weeks later, Sidebar responded to the subpoena, with a cover
letter listing the Cypress Avenue location as its business
address. (ECF No. 421-4, p. 96). Sidebar objected to the
subpoena for multiple reasons, including improper service,
failure to provide witness fees and mileage, that the
document requests were overly broad and irrelevant, that the
subpoena sought documents protected by the attorney-client
and work product privilege, and that the subpoena failed to
allow a reasonable amount of time for its response. (ECF No.
421-4, pp. 97-99). Sidebar produced no documents and did not
respond to Plaintiffs' request for a meet and confer
regarding its objections. (ECF Nos 421, p. 5, 421-4, p. 101).
then filed a motion to compel compliance with the subpoena in
the Eastern District of California. See Order,
Paisley Park Enterprises, Inc. v. Boxill, 19-mc-006,
ECF No. 9. That court transferred the motion to the District
of Minnesota for consideration. Id. The Court heard
argument on this matter on February 5, 2019. Sidebar did not
file a responsive memorandum or otherwise appear at the
hearing. Following argument from the other parties, the Court
took this matter under advisement.