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

Filing 606

Attachment 18
MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs (REDACTED) 587 filed by Plaintiffs Songs of Universal, Inc., Universal-Polygram International Publishing, Inc., Rondor Music International, Inc., Universal Music - MGB NA LLC, UMG Recordings, Inc., Universal Music - Z Tunes LLC, Universal Music - MBG Music Publishing Ltd., Universal Music Corp.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Brian D. Ledahl in Support of UMG's Opposition, # 2 Exhibit A to Ledahl Decl., # 3 Exhibit B to Ledahl Decl., # 4 Exhibit C to Ledahl Decl., # 5 Exhibit D to Ledahl Decl., # 6 Exhibit E to Ledahl Decl., # 7 Exhibit F to Ledahl Decl., # 8 Exhibit G to Ledahl Decl., # 9 Exhibit H to Ledahl Decl., # 10 Exhibit I to Ledahl Decl., # 11 Exhibit J to Ledahl Decl., # 12 Exhibit K to Ledahl Decl., # 13 Exhibit L to Ledahl Decl., # 14 Exhibit M to Ledahl Decl., # 15 Declaration Carter R. Batsell in Support of UMG's Opposition, # 16 Exhibit A to Batsell Decl., # 17 Exhibit B to Batsell Decl., # 18 Exhibit C to Batsell Decl., # 19 Exhibit D to Batsell Decl., # 20 Exhibit E to Batsell Decl., # 21 Exhibit F to Batsell Decl., # 22 Exhibit G to Batsell Decl., # 23 Exhibit H to Batsell Decl., # 24 Exhibit I to Batsell Decl., # 25 Exhibit J to Batsell Decl., # 26 Exhibit K to Batsell Decl., # 27 Exhibit L to Batsell Decl., # 28 Exhibit M to Batsell Decl., # 29 Exhibit N to Batsell Decl., # 30 Exhibit O to Batsell Decl., # 31 Exhibit P to Batsell Decl.)(Batsell, Carter)

Download PDF
UMG Recordings, Inc. et al v. Veoh Networks, Inc. et al Doc. 606 Att. 18 Case 2:07-cv-05744-AHM-AJW Document 220 Filed 11/21/2008 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION CIVIL MINUTES--GENERAL Case No. CV 07-5744 AHM (AJWx) Date: November 21, 2008 Title: UMG RECORDINGS, INC., et al. v. VEOH NETWORKS, INC., et al. =================================================================== PRESENT: HON. ANDREW J. WISTRICH, MAGISTRATE JUDGE Ysela Benavides Deputy Clerk ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS: None Present Court Reporter ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS: None Present ORDER REGARDING UMG'S MOTION TO COMPEL VEOH TO PROVIDE RESPONSES OR FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY REQUESTS The 192 page joint stipulation is divided into 18 separately numbered categories of discovery requests. Some of the categories contain a single request, while others contain multiple requests. The categories are identified by roman numerals II - XIX. For convenience, this order follows the same convention. The Court trusts that the parties already have complied with the Court's August 25, 2008 ruling. Only those issues not already resolved during the August 25, 2008 hearing are addressed.1 As to category III, the motion is granted. In any event, Veoh has represented that it is not withholding anything based upon its objection to the definition of the term "Veoh software." [See Joint Stipulation at 24-25]. As to Category IV, the motion is granted. However, as to Request 58, insofar as actual litigation is concerned, Veoh need only provide the names of the parties, the court, the case number, and the filing date. If UMG believes that it needs additional information about a particular case, if any, after examining what is available in public court files, it may serve a more specific request seeking additional information regarding that particular case. As to category V, the motion is denied. These requests are overly broad. Narrower requests directed to these subjects might be appropriate. Veoh, of course, is not required to produce any materials that it is prohibited from producing by the protective order entered in the Io Group case in the absence of an order As to categories II, VI, XVI, the motion was resolved on the record during the August 25, 2008 hearing. [See Transcript of August 25, 2008 Hearing at 57-58; Order dated August 25, 2008]. 1 Exhibit C Page 22 ockets.Justia.com D Case 2:07-cv-05744-AHM-AJW Document 220 Filed 11/21/2008 Page 2 of 3 authorizing it to do so from this court or from the court that issued the protective order in the Io Group case. Veoh's assertions concerning possible violations by UMG of the protective order in the Io Group case are not addressed in this order. Veoh may pursue them separately, preferably before the court that issued the protective order in the Io Group case, if necessary. As to Category VII, the motion is granted, except that it is denied as to Requests 91 and 92 (which are overly broad), and denied as to Request 8 (which is moot). As to Interrogatories 3 and 4, Veoh must provide a high level summary or overview, and UMG may seek additional detail by means of depositions or more narrowly-focused interrogatories, if necessary. As to category VIII, the motion is granted. As to category IX, the motion is granted. As to category X, the motion is granted. As to category XI, the motion is granted, but Requests 59-61 are limited to licenses or other agreements under which Veoh obtained the rights to reproduce or use content owned or controlled by someone else. As to category XII, the motion is granted. As to category XIII, the motion is granted. As to category XIV, the motion is granted. denied as to Interrogatory 1. As to category XV, the motion is granted. As to category XVII, the motion is granted. In any event, Veoh has represented to the court that it is not withholding unprivileged documents based on its objections. [See Joint Stipulation at 183]. As to category XVIII, the motion is denied, but if Veoh provided oral responses to one or more notices of copyrighted content, then it must serve a supplemental response to Interrogatory 6 describing such oral responses. As to category XIX, the motion is denied. However, the motion is 2 Exhibit C Page 23 Case 2:07-cv-05744-AHM-AJW Document 220 Filed 11/21/2008 Page 3 of 3 If the motion has been denied as to a category or request, Veoh nevertheless must produce any documents or information that it previously agreed or offered to produce in a writing, including but not limited to things it previously agreed or offered to produce in Veoh's June 13, 2008 letter. Presumably, Veoh already has done so in response to the August 25, 2008 order. The Court assumes that most of the documents and most of the information this order requires Veoh to produce already has been provided to UMG. Therefore, compliance by December 8, 2008 is required. IT IS SO ORDERED. cc: Parties MINUTES FORM 11 CIVIL-GEN Initials of Deputy Clerk________ 3 Exhibit C Page 24

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?