Viacom International Inc. et al v. YouTube, Inc. et al

Filing 28

Declaration of Scott B. Wilkens in Support of 27 Reply Memorandum, Reply Declaration of Scott B. Wilkens in Support of Joint Motion to Compel Production of Documents Pursuant to Subpoenas to Artis Capital Management, L.P., Sequoia Capital Operations LLC, and Triplepoint Capital LLC filed byViacom International Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Related document(s) 27 ) (Hibbard, Stephen) (Filed on 8/4/2008)

Case 5:08-mc-80139-JF

Document 2

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 1 of 2

1 2 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 The holding of this court is limited to the facts and the particular circumstances underlying the present motion. OR D E R, page 1
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

IN RE SUBPOENA TO AUDITUDE, INC., ) ___________________________________ ) ) VIACOM INTERNAITIONAL INC., et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) YOUTUBE, INC., et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________ )

Case No.: C 08-80139 MISC JF (PVT) (S.D.N.Y. Case No. 1:07-cv-02103 (LLS)) ORDER DENYING JOINT REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF "STIPULATED" PROTECTIVE ORDER

Defendants and non-party Auditude, Inc. ("Auditude") filed a document entitled "Joint Miscellaneous Administrative Request for Entry of Stipulated Pretrial Protective Order Governing Response to Third Party Subpoena Issued to Auditude, Inc."1 The document filed contains no stipulation by Plaintiffs, nor any certificate of service on Plaintiffs. Based on the joint request and the file herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the joint request is DENIED. The purported stipulation subjects Plaintiffs to various requirements and obligations without their stipulation and without a properly noticed motion. Moreover, the purported stipulation improperly seeks to have this court

Case 5:08-mc-80139-JF

Document 2

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 2 of 2

1 2 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

dictate to another court the procedures and standards to be applied to protect confidential information. See FED.R.CIV.PRO. 26(c)("A party or any person from whom discovery is sought may move for a protective order in the court where the action is pending. . ." (emphasis added)). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this order is without prejudice to Defendants and Auditude seeking a protective order from the district court in which this case is pending. Dated: 7/25/08 PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL United States Magistrate Judge

OR D E R, page 2