Production company Zero Point Zero subpoenaed in music copyright suit

Production company Zero Point Zero Production was subpoenaed on Aug. 8, 2024, for documents and testimony related to a docuseries it produced, according to court records reviewed by the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker.

The subpoena is part of a music copyright suit filed on behalf of Jamaican reggaetón duo Steely & Clevie and their representatives. The suit alleges that numerous musicians had copied or sampled without permission a rhythm first used in their 1989 song “Fish Market.” The complaint names more than 160 individual musicians and record labels as defendants.

The plaintiffs subpoenaed ZPZ in connection with the suit, asking it to turn over editorial materials related to “De La Calle,” an eight-part docuseries it produced on the evolution of Latin music, including reggaetón.

Paramount Global, which oversaw the production of the 2023 series on behalf of its subsidiary New Remote Productions, received a similar subpoena. Both were issued by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in Los Angeles.

The subpoena demanded that ZPZ turn over all video and interview footage from “De La Calle,” whether or not it was used in the series, as well as all eight aired episodes and all communications with another reggaeton duo and a singer who appeared in the series and are named as defendants in the copyright suit.

It also sought to depose ZPZ regarding the authenticity of the documents, its maintenance and recordkeeping practices, the “development and production” of the series and “the creative decisions made regarding subject matter and individuals to involve.”

In a Sept. 18 letter regarding Paramount and ZPZ’s motion to quash the subpoenas — filed that day — attorney Jacquelyn Schell of Ballard Spahr argued that the plaintiffs were seeking unpublished footage and editorial materials, including communications with sources, that are “protected against compelled disclosure by the reporter’s privileges under New York and California state law, federal law, and the First Amendment.”

Schell also asserted that the subpoenas are “overly broad, unduly burdensome” and “seek irrelevant information.”

The motion to quash was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, as both Paramount and ZPZ’s records are stored in New York City.

The plaintiffs argued in an Oct. 25 letter opposing the motion to quash that the information collected in making the docuseries was directly related to their case, that they would be unable to obtain the material elsewhere and that Paramount and ZPZ had not demonstrated that the documentary participants were confidential sources.

But Schell, in a Nov. 1 letter to presiding Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn, called the plaintiffs’ requests an “archetypal fishing expedition,” arguing that they had failed to demonstrate that the “requested materials are of ‘likely relevance to a significant issue’ and not obtainable elsewhere, as required to overcome the reporter’s privilege that protects the information sought from compelled disclosure.”

Schell asked the judge to grant the motion to quash, and award Paramount and ZPZ their costs and attorneys’ fees.

Schell did not reply to a request for comment.