UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

• Court: District Court, S.D. Florida
• Decided: July 5, 2022
• Docket: 0:21-cv-60914
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 21-cv-60914-CIV-DIMITROULEAS/SNOW

UMG Recordings, Inc.; Capitol Records, LLC; Universal Music Corp.; Universal Music – Z Tunes LLC; Universal Musica, Inc.; PolyGram Publishing, Inc.; Songs of Universal, Inc.; and Universal Music – MGB NA LLC,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc., d/b/a Bang Energy; and Jack Owoc, an individual,

Defendants. ____________________________________

ORDER APPROVING REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the Section I of Defendants’ Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, whereby Defendants assert that “The Court Should Not Consider Any Purported Evidence Arising from Plaintiffs’ Violation of Rules 26 and 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,” (the “Motion”), see [DE 112] at pp. 1–2, and the Report and Recommendation entered by Magistrate Judge Hunt on June 27, 2022 (the “Report”) [DE 171]. The Court has conducted a de novo review of Defendants’ Motion, the Report, Defendants’ Objections [DE 180], and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. A party seeking to challenge the findings in a report and recommendation of a United States Magistrate Judge must file “written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made and the specific basis for objection.” Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 783 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815, 822 (11th Cir. 1989)). “It is critical that the objection be sufficiently specific and not a general objection to the report.” Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784 (citing Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 7 (3d Cir. 1984)). If a party makes a timely and specific objection to a finding in the report and recommendation, the district court must conduct a de novo review of the portions of the report to which objection is made. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 783-84; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Accordingly, the Court has undertaken a de novo review of the record and the Defendants’ objections. The objections fail to demonstrate any error in the analysis and conclusions of Judge Hunt’s Report, with which this Court agrees. The Court denies the relief requested in Section I of Defendants’ Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, see [DE 112] at pp. 1-2. In analyzing the parties’ summary judgment motions, the Court shall consider the evidence submitted by Plaintiffs regarding evidence of Plaintiffs’ ownership of the copyrights at issue and evidence of the copyrighted works themselves.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [DE 171] is hereby APPROVED; 2. Defendants’ Objection [DE 180] are hereby OVERRULED; 3. Section I of Defendants’ Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, whereby Defendants assert that “The Court Should Not Consider Any Purported Evidence Arising from Plaintiffs’ Violation of Rules 26 and 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,” see [DE 112] at pp. 1-2, is hereby DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this 1st day of July, 2022. / A, i f □ Lain dyichacles LLIAM P. DIMITROULEAS United States District Judse

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record