Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Bit Parts

By Stan Soocher
July 28, 2011

Intermediate Date Used for Prejudgment Interest in Digital Downloads Fees Suit

A magistrate for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York adopted an intermediate date for determining prejudgment interest for breach of a digital music distribution contract. Orchard Enterprises NY Inc. v. Megabop Records Ltd., 09-9607. Orchard Enterprises had obtained a default judgment in a suit it filed against the U.K.-based Megabop for payment of $175,039.69 that Megabop allegedly owed Orchard for digital download sales of sound recordings. Magistrate Gabriel W. Gorenstein initially noted: “The Second Circuit [in which the Southern District of New York resides] has held that an inquest into damages may be held on the basis of documentary evidence alone, 'as long as [the court has] ensured that there was a basis for the damages specified in [the] default judgment.' ' Orchard Enterprises' submissions include an affidavit and attached documentary evidence. Because these submissions provide a basis for an award of damages, no hearing is required.” In Orchard's request for the nine percent pre-judgment interest allowed under New York law, Magistrate Gorenstein found: “Because the record is not clear as to when Megabop paid Orchard Enterprises $20,000 [of a total $195,039.69 owed], it cannot be determined when Orchard Enterprises began to incur damages from each individual invoice [Orchard submitted to Megabop]. Thus, the Court will compute prejudgment interest upon all of the damages from a single reasonable intermediate date. Orchard Enterprises has proposed [Dec.] 31, 2007 as such a date, as that is the date 'when approximately half of the amount claimed had already been invoiced.' Megabop has not challenged plaintiff's proposal of [Dec.] 31, 2007. Accordingly, we will accept that date as reasonable.” However, the magistrate denied Orchard's request for attorney fees and costs by noting that “Orchard Enterprises provides no admissible evidence to support its claim for these categories.”

This premium content is locked for LJN Newsletters subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.

Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations Image

This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.

The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs Image

The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.

CLE Shouldn't Be the Only Mandatory Training for Attorneys Image

Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.

A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a <i>Markman</i> hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses.