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

Filing 431

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge A. Howard Matz: Court hereby VACATES Veoh's Motion for Summary Judgment 336 , and DENIES the pending Ex Parte Applications 412 , 425 . The parties are not to file any further summary judgment motions until the close of non-expert discovery. Once non-expert discovery has ended, any party may file a motion or a renewed motion for summary judgment. If a motion refers to exhibits that were previously filed, the exhibits need not be filed anew. (jp)

Download PDF
UMG Recordings, Inc. et al v. Veoh Networks, Inc. et al Doc. 431 O UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. Title CV 07-5744 AHM (AJWx) Date April 29, 2009 UMG RECORDINGS, INC., et al. v. VEOH NETWORKS INC., et al. Present: The Honorable Stephen Montes Deputy Clerk A. HOWARD MATZ, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE Not Reported Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys NOT Present for Defendants: Attorneys NOT Present for Plaintiffs: Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS (No Proceedings Held) When Veoh filed its motion for summary judgment on March 12, 2009, the thenexisting pre-trial deadlines required parties to file dispositive motions by April 27, 2009. The non-expert discovery cut-off was April 13, 2009. (See Dec. 23, 2008 Order.) On March 30, 2009, UMG filed its opposition to the motion. Two days later Veoh produced additional documents that UMG believes are relevant to the motion for summary judgment, and on April 6, 2009 (the same day that Veoh filed its Reply brief), UMG filed an ex parte application to supplement the record in support of its opposition. Veoh opposes the application. On April 9, 2009, the Court took Veoh's summary judgment motion under submission. On April 21, 2009, the Court extended the pre-trial deadlines, making the non-expert discovery cut-off May 11, 2009, and the last day to file dispositive motions May 26, 2009. (See April 21, 2009 Order.) On April 22, 2009, UMG informed Veoh that it was amending its response to one of Veoh's interrogatories and removing a number of music videos from its list of allegedly infringing files on Veoh's system. On April 24, 2009, Veoh thereupon filed an ex parte application for leave to supplement its March 30, 2009 motion for summary judgment. UMG opposes the application. Given that discovery is still ongoing,1 and that it makes no sense for the parties to On April 28, 2009, Veoh filed a "Certification re Complete Production" per the April 6, 2009 order of Magistrate Judge Wistrich, stating that "Veoh hereby certifies that its production is complete." However, it goes on, "Veoh is aware of its continuing discovery obligations, and to the extent Veoh discovers additional responsive documents, it will promptly produce any such documents." 1 CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 1 of 2 Dockets.Justia.com O UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. Title CV 07-5744 AHM (AJWx) Date April 29, 2009 UMG RECORDINGS, INC., et al. v. VEOH NETWORKS INC., et al. repeatedly bombard the Court with ex parte applications based upon newly discovered evidence, the Court hereby VACATES Veoh's motion for summary judgment,2 and DENIES the pending ex parte applications.3 The parties are not to file any further summary judgment motions until the close of non-expert discovery. Once non-expert discovery has ended, any party may file a motion or a renewed motion for summary judgment. If a motion refers to exhibits that were previously filed, the exhibits need not be filed anew. : Initials of Preparer SMO 2 Docket No. 336. Docket Nos. 412, 425. CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 2 of 2 3 CV-90 (06/04)

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?