Spotify says stop changing the goal post Lowery…
The streaming service claims that they had already agreed to disclose documents that the Plaintiff required, on the condition that the parties first enter into a protective order for the disclosure of confidential information.
But, instead of taking that offer David Lowery moved the ‘goal posts’ and demanded for the first time ever before filing this motion that Spotify produce documents in the NMPA’s possession rather than just those in Spotify’s possession.
The streaming platform fired back by filing a motion to the court requesting that they deny Lowery’s motion which would reveal private correspondence between Spotify and the NMPA.
In the motion, the streaming platform’s counsel says that a week after they announced the agreement with NMPA via a press release, Lowery’s counsel sent their counsel a letter seeking “a copy of the settlement agreement…as well as any notifications that have been sent to NMPA members (to the extent Spotify possesses them) regarding their ability to ‘opt-in’ or ‘opt-out’ of the settlement.” Lowery’s counsel also sent the NMPA a similar letter on the same day, but the NMPA responded denying Lowery’s request on the basis that they are not a party to the case.
Spotify’s counsel responded to Lowery’s counsel on March 28th correcting their mischaracterization on the NMPA agreement and offering to meet and confer on “confidentiality obligations to third parties implicated by your request.” But, there was no response from Lowery’s counsel for 11 days. They then responded to Spotify’s counsel on April 8th stating their intent to bring the issue to the court’s attention via a motion.
After this correspondence there were further email exchanges as well as a telephonic meet and confer on April 14th. The streaming platform claims that it was during this meet and confer that Lowery changed his request from seeking notifications to NMPA members “to the extent Spotify possesses them” to seeking “all documents made by either Spotify and/or NMPA to the NMPA members regarding the agreement reached.”
The streaming platform says that they originally agreed to give David Lowery and his counsel the information they requested but they continuously changed their requirements.
Spotify concludes its motion by saying that the ”plaintiffs’ insinuations that Spotify has made misleading or coercive communications to putative class members or potentially interfered with their rights are baseless,” and for all of the reasons that they have outlined they ”respectfully request” that the Court denies the Plaintiffs’ motion.
The question here is, is Spotify being secretive or is Lowery making unsupported claims?
The full motion is below…
The post Spotify Blasts Singer For Demanding Disclosure In $150M Case appeared first on Digital Music News.