Paxson v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, D. Nevada
DecidedJanuary 14, 2025
Docket2:24-cv-00907
StatusUnknown

This text of Paxson v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. (Paxson v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Paxson v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., (D. Nev. 2025).

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 ERIN J. PAXSON, Case No.: 2:24-cv-00907-APG-EJY

4 Plaintiff Order Granting Plaintiff Erin J. Paxson v. Limited Discovery 5

6 LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT INC., et al., 7 Defendants 8

9 In opposing the Live Nation defendants’ amended motion to compel arbitration (ECF No. 10 30), plaintiff Erin J. Paxson requests limited discovery to obtain screenshots of Front Gate’s 11 checkout process active in August 2021, when she bought tickets to the Lovers and Friends 12 festival. Paxson argues that discovery is warranted because Live Nation did not submit such 13 screenshots to support Brandon Little’s second declaration in which he “admitted that his 14 [previous] testimony about the history of Front Gate’s website—based on asserted personal 15 knowledge—was inaccurate.” ECF No. 32 at 19. In the current declaration, Little admits that he 16 had previously provided inaccurate information in his first declaration about the process that 17 customers on Front Gate’s website used in August 2021 to assent to its terms of use. ECF No. 18 30-2 at 5. He states that he made a “further review of the historical records for Front Gate’s 19 website,” and that the information he provides in the current declaration is “fully supported by 20 the results of thorough investigation that was conducted of Front Gate’s historical website 21 records.” Id. 22 “A district court is vested with broad discretion to permit or deny discovery.” Laub v. 23 U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 342 F.3d 1080, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003) (quotation omitted). I may grant 1} discovery “where a more satisfactory showing of the facts is necessary.” Boschetto v. Hansing, F.3d 1011, 1020 (9th Cir. 2008). Little previously provided inaccurate information about 3|| Front Gate’s checkout process. And Live Nation did not provide screenshots of Front Gate’s checkout process as it existed in 2021 or any of the “historical records for Front Gate’s website” 5|| that Little relied on to make his second declaration. ECF No. 30-2 at 5. Out of an abundance of caution, I grant Paxson’s request for limited discovery. 7 I THEREFORE ORDER that by January 28, 2025 the Live Nation defendants must file 8|| with the court the historical website records of Front Gate’s online checkout process that was active on August 2, 2021, which Paxson would have encountered when she bought tickets to the Lovers and Friends festival. This includes accurate and authenticated screenshots of the 11|| checkout webpage, if they exist, along with any other historic records of Front Gate’s website 12|| that Little relied on to make statements about Paxson’s checkout process in his second 13]| declaration. 14 Plaintiff Erin J. Paxson may file a supplemental brief within seven days after the Live Nation defendants file their records with the court. This brief should address whether and how 16]| the records differ from Little’s description of Front Gate’s August 2021 checkout process in his current declaration. The Live Nation defendants may respond to Paxson’s supplemental brief 18] seven days after it is filed. 19 DATED this 14th day of January, 2025. 20 ge ANDREWP.GORDON. CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Don Laub Debbie Jacobsen Ted Sheely California Farm Bureau Federation v. United States Department of the Interior Gale A. Norton, Secretary, Department of the Interior United States Environmental Protection Agency Marianne Horinko, in Her Official Capacity as Acting Administrator of the U.S. Epa Department of the Army, (Civil Works) Joseph W. Westphal, Dr., in His Official Capacity as Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) Donald Evans, in His Official Capacity as Secretary, U.S. Department of Commerce United States Department of Commerce U.S. Department of Agriculture Ann M. Veneman, in Her Official Capacity as Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Peter T. Madsen, Brigadier General, in His Official Capacity as Commander, South Pacific Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Natural Resources Conservation Service Charles Bell, in His Capacity as California State Conservationist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service National Marine Fisheries Service Rebecca Lent, Dr., Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Stephen Thompson, in His Official Capacity as Manager of California-Nevada Operations of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service United States Bureau of Reclamation Kirk C. Rodgers, in His Official Capacity as Director, Mid-Pacific Region of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Gray Davis, Governor of the State of California California Resources Agency Mary D. Nichols, in Her Official Capacity as Secretary of the California Resources Agency California Environmental Protection Agency Winston Hickox, in His Official Capacity as Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency
342 F.3d 1080 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Paxson v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paxson-v-live-nation-entertainment-inc-nvd-2025.