In re Petition of Pandora Media, Inc. [related to US v. ASCAP]; No. 1941-cv-01395 (S.D.N.Y. filed Dec.13, 2013) [Doc. 733].
EMI and Sony moved to intervene in the Pandora rate-court proceeding (ASCAP) after the Court's summary judgment opinion issued on September 17, 2013 in which the Court held that the Second Amended Final Judgment ("AFJ2") prevented ASCAP from withholding from Pandora the rights to compositions in its repertory while licensing those compositions to other users. In re Pandora Media, Inc., 12 Civ. 8035 (DLC), 2013 WL 5211927 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 17, 2013) (“September 17 Opinion”). The summary judgment practice was precipitated by putative publisher partial withdrawals of rights from ASCAP.
The Court analyzed Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It considered whether the publishers' motion to intervene was timely (mixed finding), and whether the publishers possess an interest related to the subject of the action (yes). Ultimately, the Court granted the motion to intervene on the condition that the Publishers "may not raise new arguments on appeal that were not raised by ASCAP, with the exception of the Section 106 of the Copyright Act argument".