IO Group, Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc.

Filing 5

MOTION for ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF (Notice of Related Cases) filed by IO Group, Inc.. (Sperlein, Dennis) (Filed on 9/11/2006)

IO Group, Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc.

Doc. 5

Case 5:06-cv-03926-HRL

Document 5

Filed 09/11/2006

Page 1 of 3

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

GILL SPERLEIN (172887) THE LAW FIRM OF GILL SPERLEIN 584 Castro Street, Suite 849 San Francisco, California 94114 Telephone: [phone] X32 Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] Attorney for Plaintiff IO GROUP, INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IO GROUP, INC. v. VEOH NETWORKS, a California corporation IO GROUP, INC. v. DATA CONVERSIONS, INC. , a South Carolina corporation d/b/a AEBN and pornotube.com IO GROUP, INC. v. WEBNOVAS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Canadian business entity type unknown, and GONETMARKET, INC., a Nevada Corporation

CASE NO. C-06-3926 (HRL) CASE NO. C-06-5162 (HRL)

CASE NO. C-06-5334 (JSW) PLAINTIFF IO GROUP, INC.'S NOTICE OF RELATED CASES (MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF)

Pursuant to Local Rules 3-12 and 7-11, Plaintiff Io Group, Inc. hereby submits this Notice of Related Case and requests assignment of the above captioned cases to Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd in the San Jose Division. 1. On June 23, 2006, Io Group, Inc. filed in the United States District Court for the

Northern District of California a civil complaint against Veoh Networks, Inc. The Clerk assigned

-1NOTICE OF RELATED CASES C-06-3926 (HRL), C-06-5162 (HRL), and C-06-5334 (JSW)

,
Dockets.Justia.com

Case 5:06-cv-03926-HRL

Document 5

Filed 09/11/2006

Page 2 of 3

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 case to Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd in the San Jose Division attaching the docket number C-06-3926 (HRL). Declaration of Gill Sperlein at ¶2. 2. On August 23, 2006, Io Group, Inc. filed in the United States District Court for the

Northern District of California a civil complaint against DATA CONVERSIONS, INC. , a South Carolina corporation d/b/a AEBN and pornotube.com. The Clerk assigned the case to Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd in the San Jose Division attaching the docket number C-06-5162 (HRL). Id. at ¶3. 3. On August 30, 2006, Io Group, Inc. filed in the United States District Court for the

Northern District of California a civil complaint against WEBNOVAS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Canadian business entity type unknown, and GONETMARKET, INC., a Nevada Corporation. The Clerk assigned the case to the Honorable Jeffery S. White in the San Francisco Division attaching the docket number C-06-5334 (JSW). Id. at ¶4. 4. The above referenced cases are related in the following manner: a) The cases have

substantially the same parties in that the Plaintiff in all three cases is identical, namely Io Group, Inc.; and b) The matters pertain to identical property rights, namely the catalog of films produced and owned by plaintiff Io Group, Inc. Id. at ¶5. 5. These three cases all deal with a similar and unique legal question, whether a

website that displays video content contributed by others without authorization from the copyright owner can be held liable for copyright infringement. The websites at issue in each of the three matters operate in a substantially similar manner. Because the three cases are likely to be determined through resolution of this overriding legal question, hearing the cases before different judges could produce conflicting results. Id. at ¶6.

-2NOTICE OF RELATED CASES C-06-3926 (HRL), C-06-5162 (HRL), and C-06-5334 (JSW)

,

Case 5:06-cv-03926-HRL

Document 5

Filed 09/11/2006

Page 3 of 3

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

6.

Moreover, if the cases are conducted before different judges there is likely to be an

unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense. In addition to labor involved in resolving the identical legal issues, much of the development of the factual record would also be duplicative. Specifically, establishing ownership and registration of the infringed content and required expert testimony regarding technology would be duplicative in the three cases. Id. at ¶7. 7. Because the claims in the above-referenced cases involve similar parties, property

rights and overlapping facts and issues of law, Plaintiff Io Group, Inc. contends that assignment of the three matters to Magistrate Judge Lloyd in the San Jose Division will likely conserve judicial resources and promote efficient determination of the actions. Id. at ¶8. 8. In accordance with Civil Local Rule 7-11(a) plaintiff has concurrently filed the

declaration of Gill Sperlein explaining that a stipulation could not be obtained regarding this Motion for Administrative Relief because: a) parties are not authorized to relate cases via stipulation and b) because most defendants have yet to appear. Id. at ¶9.

Dated: September 11, 2006

Respectfully submitted, /s/ Gill Sperlein GILL SPERLEIN, Attorney for Plaintiff

-3NOTICE OF RELATED CASES C-06-3926 (HRL), C-06-5162 (HRL), and C-06-5334 (JSW)

,