Judge Denies States’ Discovery Request Into Live Nation Settlement, Leaves Door Open

A federal judge has denied a request by state attorneys general seeking discovery into the Justice Department’s antitrust settlement with Live Nation Entertainment, but expressly left the states a path to return with narrower demands for documents or testimony.

U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian denied the request without prejudice in a one-page order filed August 4, finding that the court had not been given specific discovery requests to evaluate.

“The Court has no actual requests for testimony or documents to review, and so the precise scope of what the states are asking for is unclear,” Subramanian wrote.

The judge directed the states to prepare “narrow and targeted” requests, send them to the Justice Department and Live Nation, and meet with the parties to determine whether some or all of the requested discovery can be provided voluntarily.

Any unresolved requests could then be brought back before the court for review.

The ruling represents a procedural setback for the states, but not a rejection of their position that discovery may be appropriate as the court evaluates the federal government’s proposed settlement with Live Nation. Both Live Nation and the Department of Justice had asked the court to reject the request for discovery outright in court filings last week.

Subramanian said the Justice Department and Live Nation should consider the states’ requests in good faith, adding that the court believes discovery in the Tunney Act proceeding is legally available when kept “within reasonable bounds.”

“The states should make sure their requests are narrow and targeted, and the United States and Live Nation should entertain these requests in good faith,” the judge wrote.

The states had sought discovery concerning the circumstances and substance of the Justice Department’s settlement, which would resolve the federal government’s claims against Live Nation while leaving intact a separate jury verdict obtained by the states.

Among other issues, the states have questioned whether the proposed settlement provides meaningful relief, how its open-ticketing provisions were developed and whether outside influence played a role in the negotiations.

Live Nation and the Justice Department opposed the broader discovery effort, arguing that the states had not established a sufficient basis for expanding the court’s review into the settlement negotiations.

Subramanian’s order does not authorize any particular request or require either party to immediately produce information. It does, however, reject the idea that settlement-related discovery is categorically unavailable and invites the states to return with a more defined application.

The discovery dispute is part of the court’s review of the Justice Department settlement under the Tunney Act, which requires federal courts to determine whether proposed antitrust consent judgments are in the public interest.

It is separate from Live Nation and Ticketmaster’s pending post-trial motions seeking to overturn portions of the states’ jury verdict. Subramanian heard arguments on those motions July 31 but has not yet issued a ruling.