The opinion
USONUITTEHDE RSTNA DTIESST RDIICSTT ROIFC TN ECWOU YROTR K
---------------------------------------------------------------------- X
:
RADIO MUSIC LICENSE COMMITTEE, INC., :
:
Plaintiff, :
: 22 Civ. 5023 (JPC) (SDA)
-v- :
: ORDER
AMERICAN SOCIETY OF COMPOSERS, AUTHORS, :
AND PUBLISHERS, et al., :
:
Defendants. :
:
---------------------------------------------------------------------- X
JOHN P. CRONAN, United States District Judge:
On August 12, 2024, Global Music Rights, LLC (“GMR”) moved to intervene in this action
for purposes of protecting its interests in the confidentiality of certain documents that Respondent
Broadcast Music, Inc. (“BMI”) has sought in discovery from Plaintiff Radio Music License
Committee, Inc. (“RMLC”) and which, according to GMR, contain “highly confidential” GMR
information (the “Requested Discovery”). See Dkts. 64-66. GMR cited as the basis for its
intervention Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2), see id., which provides for intervention of
right when an intervenor “claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject
of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or
impede the movant’s ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that
interest.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2). GMR additionally moved for a protective order barring RMLC
from further producing the Requested Discovery. See Dkts. 64-66.
The Court has referred this case to the Honorable Stewart D. Aaron for general pretrial
supervision and the handling of dispositive motions. Dkt. 69. On September 1, 2024, Judge Aaron
issued an order granting in part and denying in part GMR’s motion. Dkt. 89 (the “September 1
Order”). Judge Aaron allowed GMR to intervene “for the limited purpose of protecting its interest
in the confidentiality of the Requested Discovery.” Id. at 7-8. Judge Aaron denied GMR’s request
for a protective order that would completely bar disclosure of the Requested Discovery, yet
concluded that GMR established its entitlement to additional protections, which are set forth in the
Order. Id. at 9-11.
Anticipating a motion for reconsideration from BMI, the parties requested an extension of
time to file objections to the September 1 Order. Dkt. 99. On September 13, 2024, the undersigned
stayed the deadline to file objections and directed the parties to file any objections within ten days
following Judge Aaron’s ruling on the motion for reconsideration. Dkt. 100. As expected, BMI
moved for reconsideration on September 16, 2024, Dkts. 102-103, and Judge Aaron denied that
motion on October 2, 2024, Dkt. 116. The deadline for objections thus became October 12, 2024.
That deadline has passed, and the docket does not reflect the filing of any objections to the
September 1 Order either as to the motion to intervene or as to the motion for a protective order.
“Motions to intervene are not among those enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) as
dispositive when referred to a magistrate judge. But that list is ‘non-exhaustive,’ and other motions
may be dispositive depending upon ‘the practical effect of the challenged action on the instant
litigation.’” Kumaran v. Nat’l Futures Ass’n, Nos. 20 Civ. 3668 (GHW), 20 Civ. 3873 (GHW),
22 Civ. 8095 (GHW), 2023 WL 3160116, at *19 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 28, 2023) (citation omitted)
(quoting Williams v. Beemiller, Inc., 527 F.3d 259, 265 (2d Cir. 2008)). “There is authority within
the Second Circuit holding that a motion to intervene is dispositive, at least insofar as it is brought
as of right under Rule 24(a).” Global Auto, Inc. v. Hitrinov, Nos. 13 Civ. 2479 (PKC), 14 Civ.
2566 (PKC), 2021 WL 1220712, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2021) (alterations omitted). Thus, in
an excess of caution, the Court construes the September 1, 2024 Order, to the extent it allowed
GMR to intervene to protect its interests in the confidentiality of the Requested Discovery, as a
report and recommendation. Cf. New York Chinese TV Programs, Inc. v. U.E. Enters., Inc., 996
F.2d 21, 25 (2d Cir. 1993) (explaining that without express consent to proceed before a magistrate
judge, “the magistrate judge’s order [on a motion to intervene] has the effect only of a report and
recommendation to the district judge, who upon the filing of objections must review de novo the
recommendation’).
A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge” in a report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(C). If a party submits a timely objection to any part of the magistrate judge’s
disposition, the district court will conduct a de novo review of the contested section. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b)(3); see also United States v. Male Juvenile, 121 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 1997). If no
objections are made, the Court reviews the report and recommendation for clear error. See, e.g.,
Wilds v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 262 F. Supp. 2d 163, 169 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).
No objections to the September 1 Order have been filed and the time for making any
objections has passed. Indeed, as Judge Aaron noted, BMI did not challenge GMR’s right to
intervene in this proceeding for the purposes of seeking a protective order. September 1 Order at
7 (citing Dkt. 80 at 15 n.6). Further, notwithstanding a lack of objections, the Court has conducted
a de novo review of the September 1 Order as it concerns GMR’s motion to intervene, finds it to
be well-reasoned and its conclusions well-founded, and thus adopts that portion of the Order in its
entirety. !
SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 18, 2024 Vibe Leaf 72
New York, New York JOHN P. CRONAN
United States District Judge
1 The Court also notes that no party objected to the September 1 Order regarding GMR’s
non-dispositive motion for a protective order and the time for filing objections has passed.