Bit Parts

*****

Out-of-State Law Firm Let Out of Prince Recordings Litigation in Minnesota

The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota decided it lacked personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state law firm named as a defendant in a lawsuit by Prince's estate over alleged unauthorized distribution of some of the late artist's previously unreleased recordings. Paisley Park Enterprises Inc. v. Boxill, 17-cv-1212. Co-defendant George Ian Boxill, a recording engineer who worked with Prince, allegedly signed a confidentiality agreement that stated the Prince recordings Boxill worked on “shall remain Paisley's sole and exclusive property, shall not be used by [Boxill] in any way whatsoever, and shall be returned to Paisley immediately upon request.” After Prince died in 2016, the Boston-based law firm Brown & Rosen (B & R), also named as a defendant in the litigation, had provided an opinion letter to other defendants stating that the Prince recordings were Prince-Boxill joint works. Paisley Park claims that, despite its confidentiality agreement with Boxill, the music release defendants used the opinion letter to obtain sales opportunities from third parties. Granting B&R's motion to be dismissed from the case, District Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright noted: “Plaintiffs allege that (1) with knowledge that the nationwide distribution would include sales to Minnesota, B&R advised Boxill and [co-defendant Rogue Music Alliance] to distribute the Prince Recordings; (2) B&R engaged in license negotiations and discussed Boxill's authorship status with the Prince Estate on multiple occasions; and (3) B&R authored an opinion letter regarding a contract involving a Minnesota entity.” However, District Judge Wright also noted: “Although Plaintiffs allege that B&R encouraged Defendants to distribute the Prince Recordings, Plaintiffs concede that B&R did not directly sell the music. Merely encouraging another party to place an item in the stream of commerce does not establish personal jurisdiction over B&R.” The district judge concluded: “An out-of-state law firm provided advice to out-of-state [defense] clients. The advice happened to concern a Minnesota entity and several sales happened to be to Minnesota residents. But to subject B&R to this Court's personal jurisdiction under these circumstances would discourage the dissemination of legal advice and expand the reach of personal jurisdiction well beyond its current limits.”