SPOTIFY’S CORRECTED MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION;CASE NO. 2:15-CV-09929-BRO-RAO
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
MAYER BROWN LLP
JOHN NADOLENCO (SBN 181128)
 jnadolenco@mayerbrown.com
EUGENE VOLOKH (SBN 194464)
evolokh@mayerbrown.com
350 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071-1503Telephone: (213) 229-9500Facsimile: (213) 625-0248A. JOHN P. MANCINI (admitted 
 pro hac vice
)
 jmancini@mayerbrown.com
ALLISON LEVINE STILLMAN (admitted 
 prohac vice
)
astillman@mayerbrown.com
1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10020-1001Telephone: (212) 506-2295Facsimile: (212) 849-5895ARCHIS A. PARASHARAMI (admitted 
 prohac vice
)
aparasharami@mayerbrown.com
DANIEL E. JONES (admitted 
 pro hac vice
)
djones@mayerbrown.com
1999 K Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20006-1101Telephone: (202) 263-3328Facsimile: (202) 263-5328Attorneys for Defendant SPOTIFY USA INC.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DAVID LOWERY, VICTOR KRUMMENACHER, GREGLISHER, and DAVIDFARAGHER, individually and on behalf of himself and all otherssimilarly situated,Plaintiffs,vs.SPOTIFY USA INC., a Delawarecorporation,Defendant.Case No. 2:15-cv-09929-BRO-RAO
DEFENDANT SPOTIFY USA INC.’SCORRECTED MEMORANDUM OFPOINTS AND AUTHORITIES INOPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’MOTION FOR CORRECTIVEACTION TO PREVENTMISREPRESENTATIONS TOPUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS
Date: May 16, 2016Time: 1:30 pmJudge: Hon. Beverly Reid O’Connell
Case 2:15-cv-09929-BRO-RAO Document 55 Filed 04/26/16 Page 1 of 23 Page ID #:1484
 
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage
i
SPOTIFY’S CORRECTED MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION;CASE NO. 2:15-CV-09929-BRO-RAO
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728TABLE OF AUTHORITIES....................................................................................iiINTRODUCTION....................................................................................................1BACKGROUND......................................................................................................3ARGUMENT............................................................................................................6I. Plaintiffs Filed This Motion Despite Spotify’s Willingness ToProvide Them With Most Of The Communications In Spotify’sPossession That They Have Requested ...............................................6II. Plaintiffs Improperly Seek Relief Directed At, And Based OnThe Alleged Conduct Of, The NMPA, Which Is Not A Party ToThis Litigation......................................................................................7III. Plaintiffs’ Demand To Review And Approve FutureCommunications By Spotify Violates The First Amendment...........10A. Plaintiffs Allege No Improper Communications BySpotify......................................................................................12B. Spotify’s Communications With Publishers RegardingThe NMPA Agreement Have Been Extremely Limited And Are Not Coercive.............................................................14CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................17
Case 2:15-cv-09929-BRO-RAO Document 55 Filed 04/26/16 Page 2 of 23 Page ID #:1485
 
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESPage
ii
SPOTIFY’S CORRECTED MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION;CASE NO. 2:15-CV-09929-BRO-RAO
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
Cases
 Alcatel-Lucent USA v. Dugdale Commc’ns
,2009 WL 3346784 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2009)..................................................6, 7
 Alemite Mfg. Corp. v. Staff 
,42 F.2d 832 (2d Cir. 1930)...................................................................................7
 Applegate v. Kokor 
,2015 WL 7007997 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2015).....................................................7
 Babbitt v. Albertson’s Inc.
,1993 WL 128089 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 1993) ......................................................11
 Bryant v. Gallagher 
,2014 WL 1276475 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2014) ...................................................10
 Burrell v. Crown Cent. Petroleum, Inc.
,176 F.R.D. 239 (E.D. Tex. 1997).......................................................................15
Camp v. Alexander 
,300 F.R.D. 617 (N.D. Cal. 2014).......................................................................16
Castaneda v. Burger King
,2009 WL 2382688 (N.D. Cal. July 31, 2009)....................................................11
Chase Nat’l Bank v. City of Norwalk 
,291 U.S. 431 (1934).............................................................................................9
 Deutsche Int’l 1 v. E1 Trade Int’l
,2006 WL 6106246 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2006).........................................................7
Gerlach v. Wells Fargo & Co.
,2006 WL 824652 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2006).....................................................11
Gonzales v. Valenzuela
,2002 WL 34700599 (C.D. Cal Oct. 7, 2002).......................................................7
Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard 
,452 U.S. 89 (1981)...................................................................................2, 11, 17
 Hansberry v. Lee
,311 U.S. 32 (1940)...............................................................................................8
 Hernandez v. Best Buy Stores, L.P.
,2015 WL 7176352 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2015) ...................................................11
Case 2:15-cv-09929-BRO-RAO Document 55 Filed 04/26/16 Page 3 of 23 Page ID #:1486
View on Scribd