Paisley Park Enterprises, Inc. v. Boxill

          Lora Mitchell Friedemann and Anne R. Rondoni Tavernier, Fredrikson & Byron, (for Plaintiffs);

          Paul Allen Godfread, (for Defendants George Ian Boxill, Rogue Music Alliance, LLC, Deliverance, LLC, David Staley, and Gabriel Solomon Wilson);

          M. Gregory Simpson, Meagher & Geer, PLLP, (for Defendant Brown and Rosen LLC); and

          No appearance by or on behalf of Sidebar Legal PC.

          ORDER

          Tony N. Leung United States Magistrate Judge

         This 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.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff 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.

         On 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).

         Plaintiffs 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).

         Plaintiffs 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. 341).

         Following 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).

         Plaintiffs 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.

         II. ...