UMG Recordings, Inc. et al v. Veoh Networks, Inc. et al

Filing 121

UMG Recordings, Inc. et al v. Veoh Networks, Inc. et al

Doc. 121

1 Steven A. Marenberg (101033) ([e-mail]) Elliot Brown (150802) ([e-mail]) 2 Brian Ledahl (186579) ([e-mail]) 3 Benjamin Glatstein (242034) ([e-mail]) IRELL & MANELLA LLP 4 1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900 Los Angeles, California 90067-4276 5 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] 7 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 8 9 10 11 12 13 UMG RECORDINGS, INC., et al., 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
UMG'S OBJECTIONS TO VEOH'S SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM REGARDING APPLICABILITY OF PRIOR ORDERS 1925132

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CV-07-05744 AHM (AJWx) UMG'S OBJECTIONS TO VEOH'S SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM REGARDING APPLICABILITY OF PRIOR ORDERS Magistrate: Hon. Andrew J. Wistrich Date: N/A Time: N/A Courtroom: 690 Discovery Cutoff: January 12, 2009 Pretrial Conference: April 6, 2009 Trial Date: April 21, 2009

Plaintiffs, v. VEOH NETWORKS, INC.,, et al.,

Defendants.

Dockets.Justia.com

1

Plaintiffs UMG Recordings, Inc., et al. (collectively, "UMG") respectfully

2 object to Veoh's (purported) Summary of Discovery Orders in MySpace/Grouper 3 Actions Relevant to Current Discovery Disputes and the accompanying declaration 4 of Thomas Lane (Dkt. Nos. 110 and 111). 5 I. 6 Introduction On August 25, 2008, this Court denied Veoh's Motion to Compel Discovery

7 Responses from UMG ("Veoh's Motion to Compel") (Dkt. No. 73) without 8 prejudice. The Court noted that Veoh's motion contained "hundreds of requests," 9 that it "exceed[ed] 300-pages," that Veoh's grouping of requests was "so broad that 10 [it] really [wasn't] meaningful," and that many "of [Veoh's requests] probably have 11 been largely satisfied at this point." August 25, 2008, Hearing Transcript ("Hearing 12 Transcript") at 19:16-18, 22:12-13 (Dkt. No. 107). The Court therefore "den[ied 13 Veoh's] motion to compel" without prejudice to Veoh's right to "file [another] 14 motion"--after "complet[ing its] review of [UMG's] production" and provided that 15 Veoh organized its subsequent motion "in a sensible way." Id. at 21:23, 21:25-22:1, 16 23:16-17. At the close of the hearing, the Court asked the parties to submit 17 supplemental briefs regarding the applicability of the Court's prior orders in the 18 MySpace and Grouper cases to pending disputes. UMG submitted such a brief. 19 Veoh did not. 20 Instead, Veoh filed a new 25-page brief which exceeded (by 20 pages) the 21 Local Rule page limits on supplemental briefs, which reargued Veoh's motion that 22 this Court already denied, and which purports to seek reconsideration of various 23 rulings in prior actions. Veoh went even further by filing an improper declaration 24 from Thomas Lane, one of Veoh's counsel of record. Not only did this declaration 25 have nothing to do with the supplemental brief actually requested by the Court, Mr. 26 Lane also offers additional legal argument and testimony in his declaration. None of 27 this was proper, nor requested by the Court. Veoh's improper "supplemental" brief 28 and accompanying Lane Declaration should be rejected. Should Veoh wish to brief
-1UMG'S OBJECTIONS TO VEOH'S SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM REGARDING APPLICABILITY OF PRIOR ORDERS

1925132

1 the issues raised, it should do so through a properly noticed motion, consistent with 2 the Court's direction at the August 25 hearing. 3 II. 4 Veoh's "Supplemental Brief" Is 20 Pages Too Long The Court requested that the parties file supplemental briefs identifying issues

5 in pending discovery disputes that were the subject of orders in the prior MySpace 6 and Grouper cases. Under the local rules: "Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, a 7 supplemental memorandum shall not exceed five (5) pages in length." C.D. Cal. 8 Rule 37-2.3. Veoh ignored this limit in filing its 25-page "supplemental brief." 9 Indeed, Veoh exceeded the limit by a factor of five. Veoh compounded its 10 improperly overlong brief by filing an attorney declaration purporting to offer legal 11 argument (and legal speculation). None of this material is consistent with the 12 Court's request for a supplemental brief. As such, Veoh's submissions should be 13 rejected. 14 III. 15 Veoh Purports To Reargue A Motion The Court Denied Veoh's submissions amount to an argument for reconsideration. Veoh

16 purports to argue both for reconsideration of the Court's denial of Veoh's motion to 17 compel, as well as reconsideration of rulings the Court made in other cases. Veoh 18 has not filed any motion for reconsideration. Indeed, no motion is pending to which 19 such arguments are applicable. If Veoh wishes to present arguments (either new or 20 recycled), it should follow the Court's direction to do so after "complet[ing its] 21 review of [UMG's] production" and provided that Veoh organizes its subsequent 22 motion "in a sensible way." Hearing Transcript at 21:23, 21:25-22:1, 23:16-17. 23 UMG addresses here only the improper nature of Veoh's submission. While UMG 24 respectfully disagrees with numerous assertions put forward by Veoh, the 25 appropriate place to address such matters is in connection with a properly submitted, 26 motion, not in an after-the-fact "supplemental" brief, as Veoh has attempted to do. 27 28
-2UMG'S OBJECTIONS TO VEOH'S SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM REGARDING APPLICABILITY OF PRIOR ORDERS

1925132

1 2

A.

Veoh Improperly Reargues Its Denied Motion

As stated above, the Court simply asked that the parties file "supplemental

3 briefs ... tell[ing] me where I have previously addressed these issues, either in 4 transcript or order, and attach the full transcript or a copy of the order." Hearing 5 Transcript at 56:11-15. Veoh instead submitted lengthy reargument of the very 6 same motion the Court already denied without prejudice. In many instances, Veoh's 7 "supplemental brief" repeats, word-for-word, the same arguments set forth in its 8 denied motion to compel. For example, from page 18, line 25, through page 19, line 9 3, Veoh's "supplemental" brief reproduces verbatim the argument Veoh presented at 10 page 224, lines 14-20, of the Joint Stipulation. This rote repetition would not even 11 be proper in a motion for reconsideration. It is certainly not appropriate in the 12 context of the Court's request for a supplemental brief. 13 Moreover, Veoh continues to argue its denied motion with respect to the same 14 overly broad and unhelpfully grouped requests. The Court specifically admonished 15 Veoh that if it wished to present such issues, it must do so in a new motion that was 16 organized in an appropriate manner. See Hearing Transcript at 22:11-13, 23:10-17 17 ("I like categories, but yours were so broad that they really weren't meaningful. ... 18 This is an unmanageable package for me ... grouped in these very broad, unhelpful 19 categories. . . . So, please, if you're not satisfied with their interrogatory responses, 20 file a motion. But do it in a sensible way next time."). Veoh attempts to circumvent 21 the Court's very specific direction by rearguing the same broadly-grouped motion 22 that the Court already denied. As such, Veoh's submissions should be rejected. 23 24 25 B. Veoh's Supplemental Memorandum Improperly Reargues Other Cases Veoh's "supplemental" brief goes beyond merely offering improper

26 reargument of the motion this Court already denied. Veoh proceeds to also argue 27 that the Court should reconsider rulings it issued in other cases. Rather than confine 28 itself to the potential applicability of prior orders in other cases (as the Court
-3UMG'S OBJECTIONS TO VEOH'S SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM REGARDING APPLICABILITY OF PRIOR ORDERS

1925132

1 requested), Veoh purports to argue the merits of such prior orders. Most notably, 2 Veoh spends approximately half of its 25-page brief arguing that the Court should 3 reconsider a ruling issued in the MySpace case regarding production of certain 4 copyright registration-related information. First, as with all of its arguments about 5 UMG's production, Veoh is trying to reargue its already-denied motion. Taking this 6 violation the further step of arguing the merits of a ruling in another case is 7 completely improper. Veoh purports to offer these reconsideration arguments in a 8 submission untied to any pending motion, and without proper opportunity to 9 respond. The Court made clear that if Veoh has other issues to raise, it must file a 10 new motion. If Veoh wishes to pursue such a motion, and argue that the Court 11 should not follow its prior decision, it is free to do so, and UMG will have an 12 appropriate opportunity to respond to Veoh's arguments. Moreover, the Court 13 would be able to consider Veoh's arguments with respect to specific, properly14 grouped discovery requests propounded by Veoh in this case. Such an approach 15 makes much more sense than simply submitting a brief arguing for reconsideration 16 of a ruling without even a pending motion for particular relief. 17 Veoh also submitted an improper declaration from its counsel Thomas Lane. 18 First, the Lane Declaration has nothing to do with the supplemental brief that the 19 Court requested. Instead Mr. Lane purports to offer argument about why the Court 20 should reconsider prior rulings. Second, Mr. Lane's declaration purports to offer 21 legal arguments couched as factual matters. For both of these reasons, the 22 declaration should also be rejected. 23 V. 24 Conclusion Veoh failed to comply with the Local Rules' limitations on Supplemental

25 Briefs. Further, it improperly purports to reargue both its own, already-denied, 26 motion to compel, as well as prior rulings of this Court in other cases. For all of 27 these reasons, Veoh's "Supplemental Brief" (Dkt. No. 110) and accompanying 28 declaration of Thomas Lane (Dkt. No. 111) are improper and should be rejected.
-4UMG'S OBJECTIONS TO VEOH'S SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM REGARDING APPLICABILITY OF PRIOR ORDERS

1925132

1 2 Dated: September 8, 2008 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
-5UMG'S OBJECTIONS TO VEOH'S SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM REGARDING APPLICABILITY OF PRIOR ORDERS

IRELL & MANELLA LLP Steven A. Marenberg Elliot Brown Brian Ledahl Benjamin Glatstein

By:

/s Brian D. Ledahl Brian D. Ledahl

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

1925132