Bit Parts

Federal Judge Katherine B. Forrest of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied a plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of her decision not to recuse herself from litigation between the family interests of the late reggae artist Bob Marley and UMG Recordings. Fifty-Six Hope Road Music Ltd. v. UMG Recordings Inc., 08 Civ. 6143. The case involves a dispute over the amount of digital distribution royalties that the plaintiffs claim UMG owes them from Bob Marley recordings. Judge Forrest was assigned the case in Nov. 2011. Lawyers for the Marley parties and for UMG then submitted a joint letter to Forrest seeking her recusal; until Jan. 2010, Judge Forrest had served as counsel for record label plaintiffs, including UMG, in the file-sharing infringement suit Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC, 06 CV 5936 (S.D.N.Y.), which resulted in the defendant peer-to-peer service being shut down. But Judge Forrest noted in her recent ruling: “It is clear that Lime Wire and the present action differ in significant ways: licensed versus unlicensed distribution; digital distribution agreements that were negotiated when the digital recording industry was in its nascent stage, versus unlicensed digital distribution with developed Internet technology; etc.” She added that in the Lime Wire case, “I dealt with counsel for UMG infrequently, I did not personally review any UMG documents in connection with my representation, I never visited any UMG office or met with any UMG executive at any point during that representation, and I did not prepare or defend any UMG personnel for any deposition or proceeding.”