Before the UNITED STATES COPYRIGHT ROYALTY JUDGE ~+/J Washington, D.C. Ig 4 F. In the Matter of: ) Determination of Royalty Rates for Digital ) Docket No. 14-CRB-0001-WR (2016-2020) Performance in Sound Recordings and ) CRB Webcasting IV Ephemeral Recordings (Web IV) ) SOUNDEXCHANGE'S OPPOSITION TO MOTIONS FOR jsSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS Glenn D. Pomerantz (CA Bar 112503) Kelly M. Klaus (CA Bar 161091) Anjan Choudhury (DC Bar 497271) MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 355 S. Grand Avenue, 35th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560 Telephone: (213) 683-9100 Facsimile: (213) 687-3702
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Counselfor SoundExchange, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS Pape I. INTRODUCTION II. ARGUMENT...... A. The Motions Seek to Subvert Precedent, Statutory Text and History to Transform the Subpoena Power into an Unprecedented Early Discovery Tool. 1. The Judges'nterpretation ofTheir Subpoena Power Disfavors the Motions. Section 803 and its History Underscore the Reasoning in the Judges'010 Decision Interpreting the Subpoena Power................. (a) The Discovery Period — Including the Service of Subpoenas — Follows the Submission ofthe Parties'irect Cases ......... (b) The Applicable Legislative History Supports Denying the Motions (c) The Motions Concede Party Discovery is Inappropriate Now and Yet Seek to Subpoena Information &om Parties or Obtainable Through Party Discovery 10 (d) Any Other Reading Would Undermine the Voluntary Negotiation Period. 13 The Motions Fail to Demonstrate the Requisite "Substantial Impairment" to the Resolution ofthe Proceedings. 14 The Subpoena Requests are Excessively Broad to Meet the Motions'rofessed Need.. 19 III. CONCLUSION. 19 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ~Pa e CASES Intercollegiate Broad.