Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 89 Filed 01/29/16 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:863

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 15-3462-RGK (AGRx)

Title

Michael Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin, et al.

Present: The
Honorable

Date

January 29, 2016

Alicia G. Rosenberg, United States Magistrate Judge

Marine Pogosyan

None

None

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:

Attorneys Present for Defendant:

None

None

Proceedings:

(In Chambers)DEFENDANTS MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

On January 12, 2016, Defendants filed a motion to compel Plaintiff to provide further responses
to Document Request Nos. 9, 10 and 18, and Interrogatory No. 2. (Dkt. Nos. 83-86.) On January 19,
2016, Defendants filed a supplemental memorandum. (Dkt. No. 87.) The motion is appropriate for
adjudication without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15.
In this copyright infringement action, Plaintiff sues as trustee of the Randy Craig Wolfe Trust
(Trust). (Complaint 60, 62, Dkt. No. 1.) The complaint alleges that the Trust was established by
court order on February 19, 2002 and retains 100% of the interests to Randys intellectual property,
inclusive of but not limited to copyrights, musical compositions and sound recordings, and all pecuniary
benefits related thereto inclusive of the right to the copyrights, interests, and benefits from the
exploitation of the song Taurus. (Id. 62, 65.) Plaintiff alleges that the song Stairway to Heaven
infringes on the song Taurus. (Id. 162.)
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any partys
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). District
courts have broad discretion in determining relevancy for discovery purposes. Surfvivor Media, Inc. v.
Survivor Prods., 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir. 2005).
Document Request No. 9 seeks documents regarding whether the Trust is a charitable foundation
or other qualified entity for federal income tax purposes. Request No. 10 seeks all Internal Revenue
Service (IRS) notices or correspondence qualifying the Trust as a charitable foundation or other
qualified entity.
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 89 Filed 01/29/16 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:864

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 15-3462-RGK (AGRx)

Date

Title

Michael Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin, et al.

January 29, 2016

Defendants contend that these requests are relevant to the question of whether Plaintiff has
standing to pursue this action.
The legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right under a copyright is entitled, subject to the
requirements of section 411, to institute an action for any infringement of that particular right committed
while he or she is the owner of it. 17 U.S.C. 501(b). Plaintiff contends that he has produced
documents authorizing the transfer of Wolfes intellectual property to the Trust, and Defendants do not
appear to contest the chain of title to the Trust for purposes of the discovery motion. Under California
law, a trust is a collection of assets and liabilities and is not a legal entity with the capacity to sue or be
sued. Legal title to property owned by a trust is held by the trustee, and the trustee has the power to
bring suit. Galdjie v. Carwish, 113 Cal. App. 4th 1331, 1343-44 (2003).
Defendants argue, however, that the Fifth Amendment to the Trust dated May 13, 2008,
provided for three alternatives in the event of the death of Bernice C. Pearl: (1) sale of Trust assets; (2)
distribution of Trust assets; or (3) continuation and qualification of the Trust as a charitable foundation
or other qualified entity for federal income tax purposes. Plaintiff apparently chose the third option.
Document Request Nos. 9-10 seek documents relevant to the issue of whether Plaintiff complied with
the terms and conditions of the third option.
Defendants do not explain the relevance of the requested documents to the ownership inquiry
under 17 U.S.C. 501(b), or how such discovery is proportional to the needs of the case. Defendants do
not argue that Plaintiff does not have the capacity to sue in federal court for violation of federal
copyright laws. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(b)(3); Southern California Darts Assn v. Zaffina, 762 F.3d 921,
926-28 (9th Cir. 2014) (suspended California corporation had capacity to sue in federal court for
trademark infringement under federal law pursuant to Rule 17(b)(3)). Defendants do not cite any cases
to the contrary.1 Defendants do not argue that the Trust was not valid at the time the copyrights at issue
were transferred to it. Compare generally Clarity Software, LLC v. Fin. Independence Group, 51 F.
Supp. 2d 577 (W.D. Pa. 2014).
Interrogatory No. 2 and Document Request No. 18 seek the identification of every recipient of
payments made on behalf of the Trust since May 18, 2008. Interrogatory No. 2 is overbroad on its face.
Defendants argue that the complaint alleges that proceeds from the music portfolio buy children in
need musical instruments. (Complaint 63.) However, Interrogatory No. 2 seeks the identification of
each recipient of payments by the Trust, not identification of recipients of musical instruments
purchased by the Trust. To the extent Defendants argue that Interrogatory No. 2 and Document Request
No. 18 seek information about Plaintiffs compliance with the terms and conditions of the Trust,
Defendants have not shown relevance to the issue of copyright ownership under 17 U.S.C. 501(b) or
1

The complaint alleges, and Defendants do not dispute for purposes of this discovery
motion, that the Trust was created by court order in 2002. (Complaint 62.) The Fifth
Amendment to the Trust did not become effective until May 13, 2008. Defendants do not argue
that the Trust was not valid at the time it received ownership of the copyrights at issue.
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 89 Filed 01/29/16 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:865

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 15-3462-RGK (AGRx)

Date

Title

Michael Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin, et al.

January 29, 2016

proportionality for the reasons discussed above.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants motion to compel discovery is DENIED.

0
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

00

mp

Page 3 of 3