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

Filing 66

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

Doc. 66

1
2 3 4 5 6

Steven A. Marenberg (101033) ([e-mail]) Elliot Brown (150802) ([e-mail]) Brian Ledahl (186579) ([e-mail]) Benjamin Glatstein (242034) ([e-mail]) IRELL & MANELLA LLP 1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900 Los Angeles, California 90067-4276 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone]

7 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 8 9
10 11 12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION Case No. CV-07-05744 ARM (AJWx) DECLARATION OF BRIAN LEDAHL IN SUPPORT OF UMG'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT TO ADD DEFENDANTS Magistrate: Hon. A. Howard Matz Date: July 21,2008 Time: 10:00 a.m. Courtroom: 14 Disc9very Cutoff: January 12, 2009 Pretrial Conference: April o, 2009 Trial Date: April 21, 2009

13 UMG RECORDINGS, INC., et al, 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Plaintiffs,
v.

VEOH NETWORKS, INC., Defendant.

1896072

Dockets.Justia.com

DECLARATION OF BRIAN LEDAHL I, Brian Ledahl, declare as follows: 1. I am an attorney at the law firm of Irell & Manella LLP, counsel of record for plaintiff UMG Recordings, Inc. and other affiliated UMG entities
5 ("UMG") in this case. I am a member in good standing of the State Bar of 6 California and have been admitted to practice before this Court. This declaration is 7 submitted in support of UMG's reply brief in support of UMG's motion for leave to 8 file an amended complaint. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth below 9 and if called as a witness, I could and would testify to these same facts under oath.
10

2.

Counsel for Veoh and UMG met and conferred regarding the instant

11 motion on May 22, 2008. During that conference, counsel for UMG confirmed that 12 UMG had a present basis to allege claims against Veoh's investors, but preferred to 13 obtain discovery first in order to determine against which investors, if any, UMG 14 should pursue claims. Veoh did not suggest that this position reflected any bad faith 15 or was otherwise improper. 16

3.

As of May 22, 2008, Veoh's investors had produced no substantive

17 documents in response to UMG's subpoenas (though some had produced, for 18 example, copies of a document preservation letter previously sent by UMG's 19 counsel). 20

4.

UMG served deposition notices on Veoh's investors on May 22 and 23,

21 2008. When UMG served the deposition notices, Veoh's investors had not 22 produced any substantive documents in response to UMG's subpoenas. After 23 Veoh's investors began producing documents, UMG deferred the depositions. 24

5. 6.

To date, UMG has produced over 1.4 million pages of documents. Veoh refuses to produce many of the documents requested by UMG,

25 Veoh has produced approximately 5% of that total (fewer than 72,000 pages). 26

27 including the agreements by which Veoh licenses content from third parties and 28 sells advertising.

1896072

-2-

1
2

7. 8.

Veoh has not yet produced a single internal email communication. It is apparent that Veoh has not produced many of the documents that it

3 had produced in its prior Northern District of California litigation against lo Group. 4 For example, UMG believes that Veoh produced various internal email 5 communications, as well as various internal documents from a so-called "wiki" that 6 describe many aspects of its business and computer systems. These documents have 7 not been produced in this case. 8

9.

Veoh refuses to identify which of its employees' files it will search for

9 responsive documents, and refuses to identify which search terms it will use to
10 identify responsive documents. Further, Veoh refuses to clarify what documents it 11 does intend to produce, or when they will be produced. 12 13 14

Executed on July 14, 2008, at Los Angeles, California. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Brian Ledahl /
16 "
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1896072

-3-