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

Filing 27

ORDER OVERRULING 20 OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER DATED JANUARY 14, 2009. Signed by Judge Jeremy Fogel on 4/24/09. (jflc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/24/2009)

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
1

** E-filed on 4/24/09 **

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

VIACOM INTERNATIONAL, INC., ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. YOUTUBE, INC., ET AL., Defendant.

Case No. C 08-80211 MISC. JF(PVT) ORDER1 OVERRULING OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER DATED JANUARY 14, 2009 [Docket No. 20]

I. INTRODUCTION BayTSP, a non-party, objects to the order of Magistrate Judge Trumbull dated January 14, 2009 requiring BayTSP to produce certain documents subject to a subpoena obtained by YouTube in connection with an action pending in another district. BayTSP argues that the order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The Court concludes that the order was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law in light of the evidence and arguments presented by the parties to Judge Trumbull. Accordingly, the objection will be OVERRULED. II. LEGAL STANDARD Where, as here, the magistrate judge's ruling addresses a non-dispositive matter, the district judge will modify or set aside "any portion of the magistrate judge's order found to be

This disposition is not designated for publication in the official reports.

Case No. C 08-80211 MISC JF (PVT) ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER DATED JANUARY 14, 2009. (JFEx2)

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

clearly erroneous or contrary to law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). III. DISCUSSION For the purposes of discovery, the Viacom action has been consolidated with a class action filed against YouTube on May 4, 2007, reportedly on behalf of every copyright holder in the world.2 The documents requested from BayTSP potentially will reveal evidence supporting YouTube's defense in both the class action and the instant suit against Viacom. Where "a district court whose only connection with a case is supervision of discovery ancillary to an action in another district should be especially hesitant to pass judgment on what constitutes relevant evidence thereunder. Where relevance is in doubt ... the court should be permissive." Gonzales v. Google, Inc., 234 F.R.D. 674, 681 (N.D.Cal. 2006) citing Truswal Systems Corp. V. Hydro-Air Engineering, Inc., 813 F.2d 1207, 1211-12 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Despite this general principle that "hired" district courts be permissive, Judge Trumbull did not grant unlimited access to BayTSP documents. Rather, her order clearly balanced the relevance of the evidence and the burden on the producing party. In order to limit the burden on BayTSP, Judge Trumbull's order appropriately requests that BayTSP and YouTube work together to limit the scope of production and agree to an appropriate format. January 14 Order at 11. Specifically, BayTSP is directed to provide YouTube with a client list from which YouTube will select the clients from which it seeks documents and then work with the clients themselves under appropriate protective orders. The order also requires that YouTube defray the costs of producing the documents. Order at 10. BayTSP does not contend that all of its client relationships are confidential or explain how confidentiality is critical to its business operation.3 A protective order should be adequate to address any

The putative class action mirrors the claims in the instant Viacom suit. See The Football Association Premier League Limited, et al., v. YouTube, Inc. Et al., Case no. 07-cv-3582 LLS (FMx) (S.D.N.Y.) Opposition at 2-3. January 14 Order at 3 n.4. In contrast, Google provided its privacy policy for investigation and analysis to aid the court in determining the burden on user trust that would result from its providing user information. Google, 234 F.R.D. at 683-684. 2
Case No. C 08-80211 MISC JF (PVT) ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER DATED JANUARY 14, 2009. (JFEx2)
3

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

confidentiality concerns BayTSP may have. BayTSP's status as a non-party to the underlying case does not affect the outcome. BayTSP's service is tracking and enforcement of copyrights. It is used by many copyright holders to regulate copyrighted material. Based on the information provided regarding BayTSP's unique purpose, capabilities, and clients, it is not inappropriate for YouTube to seek documents from BayTSP that will assist it in defending the underlying lawsuit. The January 14 Order references the three-prong test of Fed R. Civ. Pro. 26 and applies it correctly. The result neither deprives a party of discovery that is reasonably necessary to afford a fair opportunity to defend and prepare the case nor permits redundant or disproportionate discovery. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Judge Trumbull's order was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Accordingly, the objection is OVERRULED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 24, 2009

___________________________ JEREMY FOGEL United States District Judge

3
Case No. C 08-80211 MISC JF (PVT) ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER DATED JANUARY 14, 2009. (JFEx2)

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

This Order has been served upon the following persons: Brandon D. Baum Caroline Elizabeth Wilson Christopher Augustine Rakow [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail]

David H. Kramer Donald B. Verrilli , Jr Eric Evans Louis M. Solomon Stephen D. Hibbard Steven Daniel Hemminger

Stuart Jay Baskin Susan Kohlmann John P. Mancini Mayer Brown LLP 1675 Broadway New York, NY 10019-5820

Max W. Berger Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman 1285 Avenue of the Americas 33rd Floor New York, NY 10019

4
Case No. C 08-80211 MISC JF (PVT) ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER DATED JANUARY 14, 2009. (JFEx2)