Live Nation Wins Pause on Breakup Discovery While It Tries to Undo Monopoly Verdict

Live Nation and Ticketmaster have won a temporary pause in breakup-related discovery while they try to undo the landmark antitrust verdict secured by state attorneys general, with the federal judge overseeing the case staying all remedies discovery until the company’s post-trial motions are resolved.

In an order dated June 3, U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian ruled that “any discovery relating to remedies will be stayed pending the Court’s disposition of the post-trial motions.” The order delays, at least for now, the states’ push to begin discovery into potential structural remedies that could include Ticketmaster divestiture, Live Nation amphitheater sell-offs, limits on exclusive contracts, and monetary relief.

The ruling comes after Live Nation and Ticketmaster asked the court to halt remedies discovery while they seek to wipe out or retry the jury verdict. In May 21 filings, the company asked Subramanian for judgment as a matter of law on all claims, or, if that fails, a new trial.

Those post-verdict filings amount to a sweeping attack on the trial result. The company argues that the jury got it wrong, the states got it wrong, the evidence was legally insufficient, the market definitions were defective, the damages testimony should not have been admitted, and the trial was infected by prejudicial evidence and flawed jury instructions.

RELATED: Live Nation Moves to Undo Monopoly Verdict, Delay Breakup Discovery

The company also asked the court to delay remedies discovery before the states could begin probing whether Ticketmaster should be broken away from Live Nation or whether Live Nation should be forced to sell off amphitheaters and unwind exclusive arrangements.

Subramanian has now granted the delay, though without ruling on the substance of Live Nation’s arguments attacking the verdict.

The court also deferred any decision on Live Nation’s proposed two-stage discovery process. Live Nation had asked that, if remedies discovery proceeds at all, it first be limited to the relief already obtained through the settlement between the company, the Department of Justice, and settling states. Only later, if necessary, would discovery expand to additional remedies sought by the non-settling states.

Subramanian declined to decide that issue now. “The Court defers any decision on defendants’ two-stage discovery proposal until the pending post-trial motions are resolved,” the order states. “At that point, if discovery is permitted, defendants may raise any objection, including to the sequencing of discovery.”

The order also notes that if any information or discovery is sought relating to Tunney Act proceedings tied to the DOJ settlement, an appropriate application may be filed under 15 U.S.C. Section 16.

The ruling is a procedural win for Live Nation because it slows the states’ effort to build the record for structural relief after their trial victory. It does not, however, decide whether the verdict will stand, whether Live Nation’s post-trial motions have merit, or whether breakup-related discovery will ultimately proceed.

The immediate effect is to freeze the remedies phase while the court considers Live Nation’s bid to erase or undermine the verdict.

The pause came after the plaintiff states urged the court to reject Live Nation’s sequencing proposal. In a May 27 letter, the states argued that Live Nation’s approach would unfairly limit them by default to discovery about relief negotiated by other parties before trial, rather than discovery tied to the jury verdict the states obtained after pressing the case forward.

“This is not consistent with the jury verdict that the Plaintiff States successfully obtained after a multi-week trial on the merits,” the states wrote. “The jury concluded that Live Nation’s anticompetitive conduct harmed artists, venues, and millions of American music fans. Justice should not be further delayed.”

The states also argued that Live Nation’s two-stage proposal would likely create more disputes, not fewer. Many of the states’ proposed discovery areas, they said, relate both to the adequacy of the DOJ settlement and to additional remedies the states may seek. Splitting discovery into phases, they argued, would invite fights over whether each request related to the settlement, broader remedies, or both.

Live Nation had framed the same discovery very differently. In its own letter, the company called the states’ proposed requests an “extraordinarily broad swath of material” covering multiple business units, updated transaction-level data, Ticketmaster and amphitheater divestiture feasibility, non-party discovery, and financial records tied to damages, civil penalties, disgorgement, and restitution.

The company argued that responding to those requests before the court resolves potentially dispositive post-trial motions would impose an enormous burden across “virtually every aspect” of its business.

Subramanian’s order gives Live Nation the stay it sought, at least as to remedies discovery. The states’ broader request to move forward immediately with discovery into structural remedies is now on hold until after the court rules on the pending post-trial motions.

That makes the upcoming motion rulings even more consequential. If Live Nation succeeds, the verdict could be narrowed, retried, or wiped out. If the states prevail, the court will then have to decide whether and how remedies discovery proceeds — including whether Live Nation can renew objections to the scope and sequencing of that discovery.

The pause also prolongs the gap between the states’ vision of the case and Live Nation’s. For the states, the jury verdict should launch a structural remedies process aimed at restoring competition in ticketing, promotion, and venue markets. For Live Nation, the verdict remains legally vulnerable, and breakup discovery should not proceed while the company argues that the trial result should not stand at all.

The dispute is part of the increasingly complicated post-verdict landscape in the Live Nation/Ticketmaster antitrust case. The DOJ settlement remains subject to Tunney Act review, while the non-settling states are pursuing remedies they say must go beyond another conduct-based settlement. Those potential remedies include Ticketmaster divestiture, Live Nation venue sell-offs, restrictions on exclusive ticketing and booking practices, damages, civil penalties, disgorgement, and restitution.

For now, however, the breakup fight has been slowed. Live Nation’s effort to undo the verdict will come first.