So that judicial resources need not be spent on such minutiae, Plaintiffs do not object to substituting the word “works” for the phrase “sound recordings.” clearly is neither.

Indeed, when a jury’s verdict answers multiple written questions, it is appropriate to enter a judgment reflecting the jury’s specific findings.

The only issue Grande raises that requires any attention from this Court is the claim that Plaintiffs’ proposed judgment “seeks to bypass” the 30-day stay of execution in Rule 62(a).

Due to the needlessly extended briefing schedule for this motion, which Grande requested, the judgment in this case will be entered at least two months after the verdict was rendered.

3 While Grande objects to the inclusion of the statements in Plaintiffs’ proposed judgment that it is a final judgment and without prejudice to the right of Plaintiffs to seek recovery of fees, costs, and prejudgment interest, Grande does not contest the accuracy of those statements or claim they are inconsistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or any case law.

The Court has reviewed the parties’ Joint Status Report regarding additional time to complete damages discovery prior to trial.

1 In their Joint Status Report, the parties referenced a discussion of “the timing of any anticipated dispositive motions and subsequent pre-trial submissions.” The Court has already entered summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs on liability and found that the issue of damages should be tried to a jury.

The Court will discuss the deadlines for pre-trial submissions after the conclusion of the damages discovery period.

Section 1292(b) (Doc. No. 395) shall be July 16, 2021. b) Fact discovery regarding damages shall proceed for three (3) months, commencing on June 25, 2021. c) Initial expert reports on damages shall be exchanged thirty (30) days after the close of fact discovery.

g) The Consolidated Pretrial Order shall be filed no later than thirty (30) days following the close of expert discovery on damages.

I know y'all are almost done in this court, but nonetheless, I feel compelled to point that out.

None of that is 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case 1:17-cv-00365-DAE Document 527 Filed 08/02/23 Page 22 of 44 M O T I O N H E A R I N G 22 before you.

He has obligations to a lot of different companies, and none of that protects us.

Plaintiffs move this Court to approve the form of the Judgment and for its entry, and for good cause show the following:

On November 3, 2022, the jury returned a unanimous verdict, finding the following: a. Plaintiffs proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant was contributorily liable for copyright infringement; b.

Defendant was liable for statutory damages with respect to 1,403 of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted sound recordings; c. Plaintiffs proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant’s contributory infringement was willful; and d. Plaintiffs were entitled to an award of $46,766,200 in statutory damages.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58, the jury’s verdict entitles Plaintiffs to a judgment that Defendant willfully infringed 1,403 of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted sound recordings; Defendant is liable to Plaintiffs for statutory damages of $46,766,200 under the Copyright Act; Plaintiffs are entitled to recover their costs from Defendant, to the extent set forth in a timely-filed and approved bill of costs; and Defendant additionally is liable to Plaintiffs for post-judgment interest pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961, which provides that an award of post- judgment interest is mandatory on any money judgment in a civil case recovered in district court.1

Accordingly, the judgment should be without prejudice to Plaintiffs’ filing of a timely motion seeking fees and prejudgment interest.

Attorneys for Plaintiff: Marc N. Bernstein and Will B. Fitton Attorneys for Defendant: Andrew Bart, Jacob Tracer, Dale Cendali and Johanna Schmitt

Case Management Conference conducted via videoconference.

Disclosure of trade secret information discussed.

Plaintiff should disclose with specificity the trade secret claims within 30 days (June 10, 2021).

If the specificity of the disclosure is insufficient for defendants, the parties should meet and confer in an attempt to resolve the issue before raising the matter with the Court.