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

Filing 212

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

Doc. 212

1 IRELL & MANELLA LLP Steven A. Marenberg (101033) ([e-mail]) 2 Elliot Brown (150802) ([e-mail]) Brian D. Ledahl (186579) ([e-mail]) 3 Benjamin Glatstein (242034) ([e-mail]) 1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900 4 Los Angeles, California 90067-4276 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] 6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 7 8 9 10 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
IRELL & MANELLA LLP
A Registered Limited Liability Law Partnership Including Professional Corporations

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION Plaintiffs, vs. Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CV-07-05744 AHM (AJWx) UMG'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME ON MOTION TO COMPEL VEOH TO APPEAR FOR DEPOSITIONS Concurrently filed herewith: (1) Notice of Motion and Motion for Order Requiring Veoh to Appear for Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition; and (2) Declaration of Brian Ledahl Magistrate: Hon. Andrew J. Wistrich Date: TBD Time: TBD Ctrm: 690 Discovery Cutoff: January 12, 2009 Pretrial Conference: April 6, 2009 Trial Date: April 21, 2009

11 UMG RECORDINGS, INC., et al.,

14 VEOH NETWORKS, INC., et al.,

UMG'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME ON MOTION TO COMPEL VEOH TO APPEAR FOR DEPOSITIONS 1969764

Dockets.Justia.com

1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Local Rule 7-19, Plaintiffs UMG 3 Recordings, Inc., Universal Music Corp., Songs of Universal, Inc., Universal4 Polygram International Publishing, Inc., Rondor Music International, Inc., Universal 5 Music ­ MGB NA LLC, Universal Music ­ Z Tunes LLC, and Universal Music ­ 6 MBG Music Publishing Ltd., (collectively "UMG") hereby apply to the Court ex 7 parte, for expedited consideration of UMG's accompanying motion to compel Veoh 8 to appear for its deposition. 9 UMG noticed Veoh's deposition, pursuant to Federal Rule 30(b)(6), for 10 October 14, 2008. Veoh propounded written objections in which it refused to 11 appear, incorrectly contending that the deposition notice was improper (as discussed 12 in greater detail in UMG's accompanying Motion to Require Veoh to Appear for 13 Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition). UMG diligently attempted to meet and confer with 14 Veoh and work toward cooperatively scheduling depositions of both parties. During 15 a conference of counsel on October 24, 2008, counsel for Veoh suggested that they 16 might be willing to appear in response to UMG's notice without court intervention, 17 but requested further time to confirm this position. In reliance on Veoh's bona 18 fides, UMG agreed to wait for an answer. On October 30 and November 3, 2008, 19 UMG conducted further discussions with counsel for Veoh in which they continued 20 to suggest that Veoh might be willing to appear and indicated that Veoh would make 21 a written proposal regarding the issue. On November 7, still having not received 22 that proposal, UMG reminded Veoh that it had not definitively stated whether it 23 would appear for its deposition without a Court Order. Veoh still did not respond. 24 On November 12, during a telephone conference, Veoh reversed course and 25 indicated that it would refuse to appear for its deposition without a Court Order. 26 Expedited consideration of UMG's motion to compel is needed given the 27 delay caused by Veoh in addressing this issue and the short time remaining for 28 discovery. UMG initially deferred noticing Veoh's deposition in light of significant
-1UMG'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME ON MOTION TO COMPEL VEOH TO APPEAR FOR DEPOSITIONS

1969764

1 gaps which remain in Veoh's production of documents ­ such as a meaningful 2 production of internal correspondence and email communications. Ultimately, 3 UMG issued a notice for a date after the deadline for completing core production set 4 by the Court on August 25, 2008 (i.e., a deadline of September 30, 2008). UMG 5 had hoped that Veoh's production by that time would represent a comprehensive 6 and good faith production. UMG issued its notice with a cover letter indicating its 7 willingness to work with Veoh cooperatively on scheduling both parties' 8 depositions. See Ledahl Decl., Ex. B (September 26 Notice of Deposition). UMG 9 expended significant time trying to reach a cooperative solution in reliance on 10 Veoh's suggestion that such a solution might be reached and in an effort to avoid 11 unnecessarily burdening the Court. Unfortunately, Veoh apparently had no 12 intention of reaching a cooperative solution regarding UMG's deposition notice, 13 resulting in delay of UMG's ability to raise this issue with the Court. Further, as 14 Veoh itself has argued in seeking expedited hearing of issues recently, the discovery 15 cut-off in this case is approaching and a resolution of this issue is needed to allow 16 for the prompt and efficient scheduling of Veoh's Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. 17 In light of these facts, expedited consideration of UMG's motion to compel is 18 needed. UMG respectfully requests that the Court consider UMG's motion 19 immediately to avoid further delay by Veoh in appearing for deposition. 20 UMG gave notice of this application to Rebecca Calkins, counsel for Veoh, 21 during a telephone conference on November 12, 2008. On November 12, 2008, 22 UMG also separately provided notice to all other defendants by email. 23 25 The name, address, and telephone number of counsel for defendants are as 24 follows: Jennifer Golinveaux 26 WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 27 101 California Street San Francisco, CA 94111-5894Fax: 28 Telephone: [phone]
-2-

Rebecca Calkins Erin Ranahan WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 333 South Grand Avenue, 38th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543
UMG'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME ON MOTION TO COMPEL VEOH TO APPEAR FOR DEPOSITIONS

1969764

1 Facsimile: [phone] 2 Email: [e-mail] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Glen L. Kulik, Esq. Alisa S. Edelson, Esq. KULIK, GOTTESMAN, MOUTON & SIEGEL, LLP 15303 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1400 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Email: [e-mail] Email: [e-mail] Michael S. Elkin Thomas P. Lane WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Email: [e-mail] Email: [e-mail]

Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 213-615-1750 Email: [e-mail] Email: [e-mail] Robert G. Badal, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DOOR LLP 350 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Email: [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendants Shelter Capital Partners and Shelter Venture Fund L.P. Annette L. Hurst, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP The Orrick Building 405 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2669 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Email: [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendants Shelter Capital Partners and Shelter Venture Fund L.P. IRELL & MANELLA LLP Steven A. Marenberg Elliot Brown Brian Ledahl Benjamin Glatstein

20 Attorneys for Defendant Tornante Company LLC 21 Dated: November 12, 2008 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

By:

/s Brian Ledahl

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
-3UMG'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME ON MOTION TO COMPEL VEOH TO APPEAR FOR DEPOSITIONS

1969764