In SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, the plaintiffs' motion to compel interrogatory answers and document production by defendant has been granted in part and denied in part.
The text of the order is as follows:
Judge Nancy Gertner: Electronic ORDER entered granting in part and denying in part  Motion to Compel. "The Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel  is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as follows. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: GRANTED. To the extent that the Plaintiffs seek non-privileged communications pertaining to the infringement alleged in the Complaint, these communications are plainly relevant under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). Plaintiffs are reminded, however, that this lawsuit is not an opportunity to explore any potential copyright infringement committed by the Defendant at any time or place. Rather, this suit and relevant discovery are limited to the infringement of specific songs whose copyrights are owned or licensed by the Plaintiffs and which were identified Exhibits A or B to their Complaint. Within these limits, the Defendant shall disclose all relevant documents and communications sought by this request for production, except for those that he claims are privileged. Relevant but privileged materials shall be listed in a Privilege Log produced to the Plaintiffs, with the asserted privilege(s) identified for each withheld document. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: GRANTED. The Defendant shall produce any burned CDs within his custody or control which (1) were created from Jan. 1, 2003, to the present, and (2) contain sound recordings whose copyrights are owned or licensed by Plaintiffs, were identified in Exhibits A or B of the Complaint, and were located in the "shared" folder associated with any online file-sharing system used by the Defendant. This request is relevant to the duplication and potential transmission of the copyrighted works at issue in this lawsuit, particularly where the Defendant has argued that his file-sharing was minimal and that the available statutory damages are unconstitutionally excessive. REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION NOS. 21 and 22: DENIED. The Defendant's musical tastes do not appear relevant to his liability for copyright infringement and, under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(C), his access to copyright notices can be established in far less burdensome ways than the production of every CD he owns. Unless the Defendant has claimed that the specific songs at issue in this lawsuit were uploaded from CDs he already owned, there is no basis for compelling him to produce CDs containing songs altogether unrelated to the present litigation or unrelated CD covers. INTERROGATORY NO. 26: DENIED. The Plaintiffs have not sought leave to serve additional interrogatories under Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(a)(1). If they wish to serve interrogatories in excess of the 25 provided by the Federal Rules, Plaintiffs may reach an agreement with the Defendant or may separately apply to the Court for leave. It should be noted that the Court is not inclined to grant such a request at this time."Background documents:
Plaintiffs' motion to compel additional discovery responses from defendant
Defendant's opposition to plaintiffs' motion to compel additional discovery responses
Keywords: lawyer digital copyright law online internet law legal download upload peer to peer p2p file sharing filesharing music movies indie independent label freeculture creative commons pop/rock artists riaa independent mp3 cd favorite songs intellectual property portable music player