The High Court has ruled on competing discovery requests in a dispute over the distribution of licence fees to performers. Mr Justice Twomey refused three requests by Recorded Artists Actors Performers Ltd (RAAP) for correspondence that the court had no reason to believe was not already in RAAP’s possession. He ordered Phonographic Performance (Ireland) Ltd (PPI) to provide documents reflecting consideration of possible approaches to calculating or allocating licence revenue, and refused PPI’s request for documents about alleged impediments to RAAP providing database information.
The judgment, delivered on 27 February 2025, addresses discovery applications in proceedings concerning RAAP’s claim that PPI abused a dominant position in relation to licence fees collected for public performances and broadcasts. Those claims are allegations in the underlying dispute; the judgment concerns which documents must be discovered, not the merits of the claims.
RAAP sought documents in Categories 2, 3 and 4, including material supporting PPI’s revenue allocations and correspondence between the parties about information requests and allocation methodology. RAAP argued that the documents were relevant and presumed necessary under the discovery rules, even if it already held copies. PPI disputed that interpretation.
The judge held that where RAAP had, or was almost certain to have, a document because it had sent or received it and retained a copy, production by PPI was not necessary. He therefore refused discovery of Categories 2 to 4. The ruling did not turn on a finding that the correspondence was irrelevant: the parties did not dispute its relevance.
PPI sought Category 9 documents about alleged impediments to RAAP providing information from its performer database, including material about the database’s purpose and any claimed commercial or personal sensitivity. The court found that the pleadings did not claim there were impediments to providing the information. RAAP’s pleaded position was that the information was proprietary. The judge refused Category 9 as irrelevant to the issues pleaded.
RAAP also sought Category 8 documents reflecting any consideration by or for PPI of possible approaches to calculating or allocating licence revenue. PPI argued that its internal consideration was irrelevant because it said it had no discretion in performing its statutory obligations. The court held that the material could be relevant to RAAP’s separate allegation of abuse of a dominant position and ordered discovery of Category 8.
The judgment also discussed the burden of discovery. The court recorded submissions that about 1.78 million documents had been searched, leaving 81,378 potentially relevant documents, and that six reviewers would need seven weeks to review them. Those figures were presented as submissions in the case. The court said the proceedings would be provisionally listed for mention two weeks after delivery to deal with final orders and costs, with liberty for the parties to tell the Registrar if a further listing proved unnecessary.