Songwriter NBA case
Photo Credit: Felicity Lynn
An “interested party” seeks to reopen music publishers’ case against over a dozen NBA teams. But the publishers say they had nothing to do with the move to reopen it.
Last week, we reported that an “interested party” identified in court documents as Jonna Johnson filed a motion seeking to reopen music publishers’ settled copyright infringement lawsuit against over a dozen NBA teams. Now, the music publisher plaintiffs have filed a response in opposition to Johnson’s motion to reopen the case, stressing that the effort to reopen the matter is “an attempt by a stranger.”
The original case was in litigation for about a year, and on October 31—around six months after it was settled—Jonna Johnson filed her motion to vacate the court’s dismissal order and to reopen the case. Her filing cites newly discovered evidence, fraud, misrepresentation, and misconduct.
But it’s unclear when this new evidence was even obtained, given that the parties reached a settlement in May, before the discovery phase had entered full swing. Moreover, publishers had even asked the court to approve a discovery postponement, presumably stemming from complications surrounding 14 separate cases that had not yet been consolidated. Yet the case was settled before that could happen.
“The extraordinary public interest nature of this case—linking private music-publishing control to publicly funded sports franchises—warrants judicial review to prevent ongoing harm and preserve confidence in the judicial process,” Johnson’s filing reads.
“To be clear, the parties to this litigation consider the matter resolved, and the dismissal final, neither Plaintiffs nor Defendants have indicated a desire or a need to reopen the litigation,” wrote the publisher plaintiffs, which include Artist Publishing Group, Kobalt, Notting Hill, and several other music publishers, in their response.
“Jonna Johnson, who is not a party to this case, filed a motion to vacate the Court’s dismissal order and reopen a case that was settled and dismissed with prejudice after negotiations between the actual parties,” they continue. “The filing by [Johnson] is both procedurally flawed and substantively without merit. She was never a party to this case, has no stake in the settlement, and provides no evidence (no exhibits, affidavits, or documents) to support her false allegations of fraud and misrepresentation.”
While it seems unlikely that the court will acquiesce to Johnson’s request to reopen the case given the response from the actual plaintiffs involved, we’ll be keeping an eye on the matter as it develops.