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

Filing 13

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

Doc. 13

Case 3:07-cv-01568-W-BLM

Document 13

Filed 09/04/2007

Page 1 of 31

Steven A. Marenberg (101033) ([e-mail]) Elliot Brown (150802) ([e-mail]) 2 Benjamin Glatstein (242034) ([e-mail]) IRELL & MANELLA LLP 3 1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900 Los Angeles, California 90067-4276 4 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] 5 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 6 UMG Recordings, Inc.; Universal Music Corp.; 7 Songs of Universal, Inc.; Universal-Polygram International Publishing, Inc.; 8 and Rondor Music International, Inc.
9 10 11

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO DIVISION ) Case No. 07 CV 1 568 TJW (BLM) ) ) DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF MOTION ) AND MOTION TO DISMISS OR, IN THE Plaintiff, ) ALTERNATIVE, TO TRANSFER ) ) FILED CONCURRENTLY HEREWITH: vs. ) DECLARATION OF BENJAMIN ) GLATSTEIN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION ) UMG RECORDINGS, INC., a Delaware ) Date: October 9, 2007 Corporation; UNIVERSAL MUSIC CORP., a ) Time: 10:00 a.m. New York corporation; SONGS OF ) Judge: Hon. Thomas J. Whelan UNIVERSAL, INC., a California corporation; ) Courtroom: 7 UNIVERSAL-POLYGRAM ) INTERNATIONAL PUBLISHING, INC.. a ) No Oral Argument Pursuant to Civil Local Delaware corporation; RONDOR MUSIC ) Rule 7.1fd). INTERNATIONAL, INC., a California ) corporation; and DOES 1-10 INCLUSIVE, ) ) Defendants. ) )

12 VEOH NETWORKS, INC., a California corporation, 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
I R E L L & MANELLA LLP A Registered Limited Liability Law Partnership Including Professional Corporations

DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS OR TO TRANSFER CASE NO. 07 CV 1568 TJW 1748112

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 3:07-cv-01568-W-BLM

Document 13

Filed 09/04/2007

Page 2 of 31

1
2

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on October 9, 2007, at 10:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as

3 this matter can be heard before the Honorable Thomas J. Whelan of the United States District 4 Court for the Southern District of California, at 940 Front Street San Diego, CA 92101, Defendants 5 UMG Recordings, Inc., Universal Music Corp., Songs of Universal, Inc., Universal-Polygram 6 International Publishing, Inc., and Rondor Music International, Inc., (collectively, "UMG") will 7 move and hereby does move pursuant to Rule 12(b)(l) to dismiss this declaratory judgment action 8 or, in the alternative, to transfer this action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), to the Central District 9 of California where related litigation has been ongoing for nearly a year. 10
This motion is based on the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support

11 Thereof, the Declaration Benjamin Glatstein, all files and pleadings in this action and any other 12 matters that may properly come before the court at or before the tune of hearing on this matter. 13 Dated: September 4, 2007 14 15 16
17 18

Respectfully Submitted, IRELL & MANELLA LLP

^-?*£--J(^w-^\ --
Steve>£&. MareiiSergf \ Elliot Brown \^ \ Benjamin Glatstein ^-*^ Attorneys for Declaratory Defendants UMG RECORDINGS, INC.; UNIVERSAL MUSIC CORP.; SONGS OF UNIVERSAL, INC.; UNIVERSAL-POLYGRAM INTERNATIONAL PUBLISHING, INC.; RONDOR MUSIC INTERNATIONAL, INC.

^-*^

/£--W

19
20 21 22 23

24 25 26 27 28
I R E L L & MANELLA LLP A Registered Limited Liability Law Partnership Including Professional Corporations

\
DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS OR TO TRANSFER CASENO.07CV1568TJW 1748112 ~2 -

Case 3:07-cv-01568-W-BLM

Document 13

Filed 09/04/2007

Page 3 of 31

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PRELIMINARY STATEMENT FACTUAL BACKGROUND A. B. C. UMG's Infringement Battles With "File-Sharing" Mass Infringers. The Emergence of "Video Sharing" Sites and UMG's Three Pending Actions in the Central District of California The Veoh "Video Sharing" Service Veoh's Tactical Suit And Litigation In The Press UMG's Suit Against Veoh 1 2 2 3 5 6 9 9 10 11 11

2 3 I.
4 II. 5 6 7 8
D.

9
E.

10
III.

11 12 13

VEOH'S COMPLAINT SHOULD BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION A. B. Veoh Fails To Identify A "Precisely Framed" or "Definite And Concrete" Dispute Veoh Fails To Identify Any Registered Copyright In Dispute Veoh Seeks An Impermissible Advisory Opinion

14
C.

15
IV.

16 17
V.

VEOH'S COMPLAINT WAS FILED FOR TACTICAL PURPOSES, IT SHOULD BE DISMISSED AS AN ABUSE OF THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THE CASE SHOULD BE TRANSFERRED TO THE CENTRAL DISTRICT A. B. Veoh Could Have Brought, And Should Have Brought, Its Action in the Central District The Interest of Justice Favors Transfer to Facilitate Coordination with UMG's Pending Actions Against Other "Video-Sharing" Services Convenience of the Witnesses and Parties Favor Transfer

13 16 17

18 19 20 21 22

18 21 25

C.

23
VI. CONCLUSION

24 25 26 27 28
IRELL & MANELLA LLP
A Registered Limited Liability Law Partnership Including Professional Corporations

DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS OR TO TRANSFER CASE NO. 07 CV 1568 TJW 1748112
-1-

Case 3:07-cv-01568-W-BLM

Document 13

Filed 09/04/2007

Page 4 of 31

1

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

2
3 Cases 4 A&MRecords, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (2001) 5 A.J. Industries, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Central Dist. Of California, 6 503 F.2d 384 (1974) 7 Amazon.com v. Cendant Corp., 404 F. Supp. 2d 1256 (2005) 8 Armerada Petroleum Corp. v. Marshall, 9 381 F.2d 661 (1967) 10 Bausch & Lomb Inc. v. Alcide Corp., 684 F. Supp. 1155 (1987) 11 Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc. v. Schneider, 12 435 F. Supp. 742 (1977) 13 Continental Grain Co. v. The FBL-585, 364 U.S. 19 (1960) 14 Corbis Corp. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 15 351 F. Supp. 2d 1090 (2004) 16 Cunningham Bros., Inc. v. Bail, ,, 2 18,19 17,18, 21 12 14 14 17,18 11, 12

407F.2dll65(1969)

12
14 16,21 18, 19 14 19 ....10 12, 13 21
.. DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS OR TO TT5 A \FQPFP IJVJUNOPEK. CASE NO. 07 CV 1568 TJW

17
18 Davox Corp. v. Digital Systems Intern., Inc., 846 F. Supp. 144 (1993)

19 Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834 (1986) 20 Durham Prods, Inc. v. Sterling Film Portfolio, Ltd., Series A, 21 537 F. Supp. 1241 (1982) 22 EMC Corp. v. NorandCorp., 89 F.3d 807 (1996) 23 Falconwood Financial Corp. v. Griffin, 24 838 F. Supp. 836 (1993) 25 Flastv. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83(1968) 26 Gribin v. Hammer Galleries, a Div. of Hammer Holding, Inc., 27 793 F. Supp. 233 (1992) 28 Gulf Oil Corp. v Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501(1947)
I R E L L & MANELLA LLP A Registered Limited Liability Law Partnership Including Professional Corporations 1748112

-11-

Case 3:07-cv-01568-W-BLM

Document 13

Filed 09/04/2007

Page 5 of 31

1
2 3 /fa/ Roach Studios Inc. v. RichardFeiner & Co., Inc.,
896 F.2d. 1542(1989)

Page(s)

15 12 18 2 21 15 18, 19 2 10, 14 18 16 11 18,21 18,19

4 5
Hanes Corp. v. Millar d, 531 F.2d 585 (1976) 883 F.2d 1286 (1989)

6 Heller Financial, Inc., v. Midwhey Powder Co., 7 8
In re Aimster Copyright Litigation, 334 F.3d 643 (7th Cir. 2003) 305 F.3d 354 (2002)

9 In re Horseshoe Entertainment,
10 11
lo Group v. Veoh, Networks, N.D. Cal. Case No. G06-3926 HRL (Year) 2005 WL 2439197 (2005)

12 Jolly v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 13 14
M.G.M.Studios v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005) 127 S. Ct. 764 (2007)...

15 Medlmmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 16 17
Posven, C.A. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 303 F. Supp. 2d 391 (2004) 211F.3d509(2000)

18 Ravelo Monegro v. Rosa, 19 20
RDF Media Ltd. v. Fox Broadcasting Co., 372 F. Supp. 2d 556 (2005) 119 F.3d 1559 (1997)

21 Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly and Company, 22 23
Republic of Bolivia v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc., 39 F. Supp. 2d 1008 (1999)

24 Salehv. Titan Corp., 361 F. Supp. 2d 1152 (2005) 25
Schneider v. Sears,

20, 21,24

26

265 F. Supp. 257 (1967).
306 F.3d 646 (2002)

19
12
DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS OR TO TRANSFER CASE NO. 07 CV 1568 TJW

27 Scott v. Pasadena Unified School Dist., 28
1RELL & MANELLA LLP A Registered Limited Liability Law Partnership Including Professional Corporations

1748112

- Ill -

Case 3:07-cv-01568-W-BLM

Document 13

Filed 09/04/2007

Page 6 of 31

1
2 3 Societe de Conditionnement v. Hunter Engineering Co.,
655 F.2d 938 , 943 (1981)

Pagers')

15 12 3 3 4 10 17,18 10 13

4 5
State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v. Taylor, 118 F.R.D. 426 (1988) C.D. Cal. Case No. 06-06577 AHM (2006)

6 UMG Recordings, Inc., et al. v. Bolt, Inc., et al., 7 8
UMG Recordings, Inc., et al. v. Grouper Networks, Inc., et al., C.D. Cal. Case No. CV 06-06561 AHM (2006) C.D. Cal. Case No. CV 06-07361 AHM (AJWx) (2006)

9 UMG Recordings, Inc., et al. v. MySpace, Inc., et al.,
10 11
United States v. Arnold, 678 F. Supp. 1463 (1988) 376 U.S. 612 (1964)

12 Van Dusen v. Barrack, 13 14
Westlands Water Dist. Distribution Dist. V. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 276 F. Supp. 2d 1046 (2003) 515 U.S. 277 (1995)

15 Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 16
Statutes

17
17 U.S.C. §106(1) 22 22 .11 10 12 22 22 .......2,16,17,18 13 .17 ...17
DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS OR TO TRANSFER CASE NO. 07CV1568TJW 1748112
- IV -

18
17U.S.C. §106(2)

19
17 U.S.C. § 411

20
17 U.S.C. §411(a)

21
17 U.S.C. §512(c)

22
17 U.S.C. §512(i)

23
17 U.S.C. 1512(c)(l)(C)

24
28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)

25
28 U.S.C. § 2201

26
28 U.S.C. §§1391(b)(l)

27
28 U.S.C. §§1391(b)(2)

28
IRELL & MANELLA LLP A Registered Limited Liability Law Partnership Including Professional Corporations

Case 3:07-cv-01568-W-BLM

Document 13

Filed 09/04/2007

Page 7 of 31

1
2 I. 3

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES PRELIMINARY STATEMENT In its complaint, Veoh Networks, Inc. ("Veoh") purports to sue some of the record and

4 music publishing companies within the Universal Music Group ("UMG") - the world's largest 5 music company - for declaratory relief. Veoh seeks a judicial declaration that it is entitled to 6 blanket and permanent, retrospective and prospective, immunity under Section 512(c) of the 7 Copyright Act for its "video sharing" service. However, in its haste to forum shop and wage a 8 publicity campaign, Veoh has failed to properly invoke this Court's jurisdiction. 9
Indeed, although Veoh purports to seek a declaration for non-infringement of copyright, it

10 does not identify even one specific copyrighted work in dispute. Just as a complaint for 11 infringement must allege the existence of at least one registered copyright for jurisdiction to 12 attach, it only makes sense that a complaint seeking a declaration of non-infringement must do so 13 as well. Otherwise, jurisdiction would attach differently for plaintiffs and defendants - and that 14 has never been the law. Moreover, this is not the only reason that the Court lacks subject matter 15 jurisdiction over Veoh's complaint. Veoh's description of the purported "dispute" is so nebulous 16 (indeed, Veoh does not identify a single specific act that is alleged to constitute infringement), that 17 its complaint fails to satisfy the "case or controversy" requirement necessary to support federal 18 subject matter jurisdiction. At best, Veoh's complaint amounts to a request for an advisory 19 opinion. 20
However, even if Veoh could cure its subject matter jurisdiction problems, its complaint

21 should still be dismissed since Veoh filed this case for improper and tactical purposes including to 22 facilitate a publicity campaign aimed to combat the public perception that Veoh is a "piracy23 dependent company,"1 to improve its negotiating leverage with UMG, and to forum shop - none 24 of which are permissible uses of the Declaratory Judgment Act. 25 26
1

27 for download" on Veoh), available at http://valleywag.com/tech/youtube/the-ogre-in-veohs-closet28 270695.php.
IRELL & MAN ELLA LLP
A Registered Limited Liability Law Partnership Including Professional Corporations

The Ogre In Veoh's Closet, Valleywag (6/20/2007) (noting "many feature films available

DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS OR TO TRANSFER CASE NO. 07CV1568TJW 1748112
- 1-

Case 3:07-cv-01568-W-BLM

Document 13

Filed 09/04/2007

Page 8 of 31

1

Alternatively, if the case is not dismissed outright, it should be transferred pursuant to 28

2 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to the Central District of California where it can be coordinated with several 3 related and pending lawsuits involving overlapping and identical issues of law and fact that have 4 been ongoing for almost a year - and where UMG sued Veoh on September 4, 2007. The Central 5 District is not just the most convenient, efficient, and logical forum to resolve any copyright 6 disputes between the parties, Los Angeles also happens to be the exclusive forum that Veoh itself 7 has selected, and which it contractually imposes upon the public, to adjudicate claims against 8 Veoh. Veoh furthermore also handles claims of copyright infringement in Los Angeles, where 9 Veoh's Senior Manager of Copyright Compliance and many of Veoh's top executives are based.
10 Veoh's attempt to avoid litigating in its own exclusive forum of choice, and where its own 11 copyright compliance operations are based, could not be a more telling sign of the improper 12 tactical purposes animating Veoh's preemptive suit in this Court. 13 II. 14 15
A. FACTUAL BACKGROUND UMG's Infringement Battles With "File-Sharing" Mass Infringers. Since 1999, with the advent of the infamous Napster service, UMG, the rest of the music

16 industry, and other major copyright owners have had to deal with the phenomenon of the piracy of 17 their copyrighted works online through the use of "peer-to-peer" (also known as "p2p") file18 sharing networks. Peer-to-peer file-sharing networks operate by connecting users' computers over 19 the Internet and enabling the users to download or "share" copies of files from one another. 20
In a series of copyright infringement suits litigated all the way to the United States

21 Supreme Court, UMG and other major copyright owners have succeeded in obtaining injunctive 22 relief and monetary damages against Napster (and its investors) and many other major peer-to23 peer file-sharing services that followed in Napster's wake including Kazaa, Scour, Bearshare, 24 Aimster, iMesh, and Grokster.2 During the same timeframe and against the backdrop of these 25 legal successes, lawful online sales of music through legitimate retailers, such as the iTunes store, 26
2

27 Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001); In re Aimster Copyright Litigation, 334 F.3d 643 28 (7th Cir. 2003).
IRELL & MANELLA LLP
A Registered Limited Liability Law Partnership Including Professional Corporations

See, e.g.,M.G.M. Studios v. Grokster, Ltd, 545 U.S. 913 (2005); A&MRecords, Inc. v.

1748112

-2-

DEFENDANTS1 MOTION TO DISMISS OR TO TRANSFER CASE NO. 07CV1568TJW

Case 3:07-cv-01568-W-BLM

Document 13

Filed 09/04/2007

Page 9 of 31

1
3 4 5

have grown significantly, and many new opportunities have developed to license music and music

2 videos online through legitimate services that respect copyright.
B. UMG's Three Pending Actions In The Central District Of California Against "Video Sharing" Sites. Recently the Internet has witnessed the proliferation of websites featuring video that can be

6 "streamed" over the Internet, including most notably the Internet website called YouTube. Some 7 of these sites are popularly referred to as "video sharing" sites, because they enable "file-sharing" 8 of videos, and it is said that they feature "user-generated content." In reality, however, much of 9 the content on "video sharing" sites consists of professionally made audiovisual works, including
10 music videos featuring UMG's copyrighted works. These videos are not "generated" by the video 11 file-sharing site users in any sense other than the user "generates" unauthorized copies. 12
The "video sharing" sites present new opportunities for copyright owners, such as UMG, to

13 license their works for digital display and distribution. UMG has entered into licenses granting 14 rights to a number of websites to display UMG's music videos over the Internet, including most 15 prominently a deal UMG struck with YouTube in late 2006. UMG's licensed music videos are 16 among the most watched content on YouTube, where in a very short period of time they have been 17 viewed over 246 million times, and is the most popular "channel" on the entire YouTube site, 18 attesting to both to the popularity of UMG's copyrighted works and their value in drawing the 19 public to "video sharing" sites. 20
Some "video sharing" sites have, unfortunately, chosen to exploit music and music videos

21 featuring UMG's copyrighted works without obtaining the right to do so, without paying, and in 22 willful violation of UMG's rights under the copyright laws. In late 2006, in the face of growing 23 infringement of its works on "video sharing," websites, UMG filed separate actions in the Central 24 District of California against Grouper, Bolt and MySpace, three companies that operate or sponsor 25 "video sharing" to illicitly profit from mass infringement of UMG's copyrights in sound recordings 26 and musical compositions. See Glatstein Declaration, Exs. A, D, G (respective complaints).3 The 27
3

Glatstein Declaration, Ex. A, Complaint in UMG Recordings, Inc., etal. v. Grouper
DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS OR TO TRANSFER CASE NO. 07 CV 1568 TJW

28 Networks, Inc., etal, C.D. Cal. Case No. CV 06-06561 AHM (filed 10/16/2006); Ex. D.,
IRELL & MANELLA LLP
A Registered Limited Liability Law Partnership Including Professional Corporations

1748112

-3-

Case 3:07-cv-01568-W-BLM

Document 13

Filed 09/04/2007

Page 10 of 31

1

three suits raise many overlapping issues of fact and law, for example: Grouper, Bolt, and

2 MySpace each encouraged the public to upload thousands of infringing videos to their websites 3 without using filters or people to screen them for copyright infringement; each has reproduced, 4 displayed and distributed thousands of copies of music videos that infringe copyrights owned by 5 UMG; and UMG has alleged each of these "video sharing" defendants (as well as their corporate 6 parents) is liable for direct infringement and indirect infringement of UMG's copyrights. Id. The 7 defendants have responded with similar defenses, and in particular each has given prominence to a 8 purported affirmative defense under the safe harbor provision of the "Digital Millennium 9 Copyright Act" (the "DMCA") codified in Section 512(c) of the Copyright Act.4
10
UMG's first-filed action, brought against Grouper, was assigned to Judge A. Howard Matz.

11 UMG's subsequently filed actions against Bolt and MySpace were transferred to Judge Matz as 12 "related cases." All three cases are being overseen by a single Magistrate Judge, Honorable 13 Andrew J. Wistrich. Because of the factual and legal overlap, Judge Matz ordered coordination of 14 discovery among the cases. Glatstein Decl. Ex. J (3/1/2007 Amended Civil Minutes). Under 15 Judge Matz's coordination order, Magistrate Judge Wistrich's determinations with respect to 16 specific discovery disputes bind other parties as to "all overlapping or jointly applicable discovery 17 disputes, including not only document requests but also issues arising out of depositions, 18 interrogatories and requests for admission." Id. (emphasis in original). Additionally, to reduce the 19 likelihood witnesses would be burdened by multiple depositions, Judge Matz ordered defendants 20 to "undertake good faith efforts to coordinate" discovery with one another. Id. 21 22 23 Complaint in UMG Recordings, Inc., et al v. Bolt, Inc., et al, C.D. Cal. Case No. 06-06577 AHM 24 Cal. Case No. CV 06-07361 AHM (filed 11/11/2006).
See Glatstein Decl. Ex. B (Grouper Answer 161, second affirmative defense); Ex. E (Bolt Answer p. 5, second affirmative defense); Ex. H (MySpace Answer pp. 9-10) (first 26 affirmative defense); Glatstein Decl. Ex. C (UMG/Grouper Joint Rule 26(f) Report) (Grouper identifies DMCA affirmative defense as the first "principal legal issue"); Ex. I (UMG/MySpace 27 Joint Rule 26(f) Report) (MySpace, same); Ex. F (UMG/Bolt Joint Rule 26(f) Report) (Bolt, 28 same).
4

(filed 10/16/2006); Ex. G, Complaint in UMG Recordings, Inc., et al. v. MySpace, Inc., etal, C.D.

25

IRELL&MANELLALLP
A Registered Limited Liability Law Partnership Including Professional Corporations

1748112

-4-

DEFENDANTS1 MOTION TO DISMISS OR TO TRANSFER CASE NO. 07CV1568TJW

Case 3:07-cv-01568-W-BLM

Document 13

Filed 09/04/2007

Page 11 of 31

1

C.

The Veoh "Video Sharing" Service. Veoh is a video "file-sharing" company that has chosen to exploit the copyrighted works of

2

3 others without paying. Following in the ignominious footsteps of Napster, Veoh created and 4 operates a peer-to-peer service that Veoh and its users have used extensively for copyright 5 infringement. Veoh also operates a "video sharing" website (www.Veoh.com), where members of 6 the public are invited to upload, display and "share" videos, similar to the websites of the three 7 defendants in the pending suits in the Central District. It is widely known and has been widely
5 8 reported that Veoh has "copyright infringing material aplenty on its site."

9

Veoh first achieved notoriety as a repository for hard core pornography, "drawing outsized

10 attention from bloggers and other Internet users for its willingness to host racy videos that other
11 sites prohibit." Veoh Cleans Up Its Act, But Some Users Cry Foul, Wall Street Journal 12 (6/29/2006). However, after repeatedly "sharing" infringing copies of full length pornographic 13 motion pictures, Veoh was sued by a producer of pornographic movies and Veoh pulled its "adult"
6 14 content - over 15% of the total content its was "sharing" with the public. Id.

15

More recently, Veoh has been in the news as a "hard core infringer,"7 that eschews even

16 the most basic safeguards against infringement that have been adopted by other video sharing 17 sites. As a recent New York Times article explained: 18
[T]he major media companies think the firm [Veoh], backed by Time Warner and Michael Eisner, takes a cavalier attitude toward keeping copyrighted material off its service. They complain that Veoh imposes no time limits on uploaded clips and will not embrace digital fingerprinting technology to filter out copyrightedmaterial.
5

19
20 21 22 23

Veoh file pre-emptive copyright lawsuit, The Register (8/13/2007), available at 24 http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/13/veoh_dont_hit_us/. 6 See also Why Veoh Pulled the Plug On Porn, Valleywag (6/30/2006), available at 25 http://valleywag.com/tech/veoh/why-veoh-pulled-the-plug-on-porn-184737.php. Forget about YouTube: Go To These Sites If You Want Hard Core Copyright Infringement" TechCrunch (4/4/2007) (singling out Veoh as one of top destinations for "hard core 27 copyright infringement"), available at http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/04/04/forget-youtube-go28 to-these-sites-if-you-want-hard-core-copyright-infringing-content/.
IRELL & MANELLA LLP
A Registered Limited Liability Law Partnership Including Professional Corporations

26

1748112

-5-

DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS OR TO TRANSFER CASE NO. 07CV1568TJW

Case 3:07-cv-01568-W-BLM

Document 13

Filed 09/04/2007

Page 12 of 31

1 Brad Stone, Veoh vs. Copyright Holders: Is a War Brewing?, New York Times (8/9/2007). Veoh 2 has, of course, chosen not to employ the typical safeguards used by competitors for a simple 3 reason: those safeguards work, and if employed would reduce the number of infringing works on 4 Veoh.com, which are the "main draw ... for the piracy-dependent company."8 5
In late July 2007, respective representatives of UMG and Veoh held a meeting to discuss

6 UMG's investigation into Veoh's unauthorized use of UMG's copyrighted works. The parties 7 agreed the meeting would be treated as a settlement discussion covered by Rule 408 of the Federal 8 Rules of Evidence. The meeting did not result in any agreement and UMG continued its 9 investigation. See Veoh Complaint \ 64.
10 11
D. Veoh's Tactical Suit And Litigation In The Press. Shortly after the July meeting, on August 9, 2007, Veoh filed this declaratory judgment

12 suit naming as defendants precisely the same UMG entities that are plaintiffs in the three 13 infringement actions in the Central District (though these are by no means all the entities that 14 comprise the Universal Music Group). That is no coincidence; Veoh's counsel plainly studied 15 UMG's pleadings in the Central District and just listed the UMG plaintiffs in those actions as 16 declaratory defendants in this suit. Veoh's justification for bringing a federal lawsuit against UMG 17 is a purported "dispute" with UMG that Veoh summarizes in eight sentences notable for the dearth 18 of information they actually provide. See generally Veoh Complaint ff 61-67. 19
According to Veoh, at some unspecified time in "late July," some unspecified person

20 "threatened Veoh with the prospect of litigation at some point in the future." Id. Iffl 61-62. UMG 21 allegedly accused Veoh of "massively infringing upon UMG's copyrights" and furthermore, 22 "[ijncluded in UMG's threats of litigation were indications that UMG was, or is currently, 23 investigating the alleged infringement." Id. Tff 62, 64. Beyond the apparently threatening 24 "investigating," however, Veoh fails to identify any specific UMG work at issue or any specific 25 act by Veoh at issue. UMG allegedly provided no specifics: "UMG has not provided any 26
8

27 for download" on Veoh), available at http://valleywag.com/tech/piracy/the-ogre-in-veohs-closet28 270695.php.
IRELL&MANELLALLP
A Registered Limited Liability Law Partnership Including Professional Corporations

The Ogre In Veoh's Closet, Valleywag (6/20/2007) (noting "many feature films available

1748112

-6-

DEFENDANTS1 MOTION TO DISMISS OR TO TRANSFER CASE NO. 07 CV 1568 TJW

Case 3:07-cv-01568-W-BLM

Document 13

Filed 09/04/2007

Page 13 of 31

1

information about the alleged infringement that would allow Veoh to adequately assess UMG's

2 threats"; Veoh is "[wjithout concrete knowledge of its rights or the likelihood of future litigation"; 3 and "UMG has not stated with any particularity a level of damages suffered due to the alleged 4 infringement." Veoh Complaint fflf 65- 67. Elsewhere in it Complaint, Veoh is emphatic that 5 Veoh has no independent knowledge regarding any infringement: "Veoh does not have 6 knowledge of any activity or material on its system that is infringing alleged UMG copyrights and 7 is not aware of facts or circumstances from which the infringing activity is apparent," id. ^ 29; 8 "Veoh has no actual knowledge nor is aware of any facts suggesting that infringing activity is 9 apparent." id. 178; Veoh "lack[s] knowledge regarding any alleged infringement." Id. ^ 84.
10
Veoh, in sum, professes complete ignorance about any basis for any claim as to any UMG

11 copyright. The ballyhooed "threat" that purportedly justified a federal suit reduces to UMG 12 accusing Veoh of being an infringer - which, as the articles cited above show, is an allegation 13 Veoh has heard many times before from other content owners - and "indications" that UMG is 14 "investigating alleged infringement." Nothing in Veoh's nebulous description explains Veoh's 15 race to the courthouse or its dramatic, unsupported assertion that "without concrete knowledge of 16 its rights or the likelihood of future litigation, Veoh cannot operate effectively as a business." Id. 17 If 66. The nebulous "threat" and Veoh's emphatic lack of any knowledge about its alleged 18 infringement is of course not sufficient to invoke federal court jurisdiction. Veoh's contrary 19 conclusion - that litigation against UMG is a business imperative without which Veoh "cannot 20 operate" - is a non sequitur. 21
The truth about the real reasons Veoh rushed to file this action soon emerged, however,

22 when simultaneous with filing suit Veoh issued a press release entitled "Veoh Takes Action To 23 Protect Rights of Copyright Complaint [sic] Companies Offering Innovative Online Content 24 Solutions." Veoh's new CEO, Mr. Steve Mitgang, called numerous reporters to spin the story, 25 and Veoh's Chief Scientist immediately updated Veoh's Wikipedia entry to proclaim "In a bold
Veoh's press release dated 8/9/07, available at http://www.veoh.com/corporate/ aboutUs.html. Rather than just report on the suit, the Veoh press is filled with self-serving 27 propaganda about Veoh's respect for copyright and its interest in working with content owners, 28 e.g.,: "Veoh is actively taking steps to create a copyright friendly environment...."
IRELL& MAN ELLA LLP
A Registered Limited Liability Law Partnership Including Professional Corporations

26

9

1748112

-7-

DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS OR TO TRANSFER CASE NO. 07 CV 1568 TJW

Case 3:07-cv-01568-W-BLM

Document 13

Filed 09/04/2007

Page 14 of 31

1
3

move, Veoh has sued Universal Music Group" and to provide Wikipedia's readers with a link the

2 Reuters' article quoting Veoh's CEO's spin on the suit.10
Veoh's CEO, Mitgang, was forthcoming in explaining to one reporter that "the reason

4 Veoh took this action is because the company wanted the courts, content owners and others to 5 know that it is compliant with DMCA and Fair Use rules and has been working with content 6 owners to put best practices in place."11 In other words, "the reason" Veoh took its action against 7 UMG had nothing to do with UMG's purported "threat." Rather, "the reason" for the suit was to 8 get publicity for Veoh's message that Veoh is a "white-hat company."12 Indeed, regarding UMG, 9 Veoh's CEO stated, "I still hope to work constructively with Universal,"13 i.e., no hard feelings,
10 Veoh considers this a negotiation and still wants to strike business deal, not litigate.14 11 12
See Veoh's Wikipedia entry, available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veoh. The History section of this page shows the "bold move" comment was added by Ted Dunning, Veoh's 14 Chief Scientist. Mr. Dunning also added a link to the Reuters article about the suit in which Veoh's CEO was interviewed and gives Veoh's spin. See id. (citing Kenneth Li, Veoh seeks court 15 protection from Universal Music (8/9/2007), available at http://www.reuters.com/article/internetNews/idUSN0923286220070809.
10

13

16

11

Quoted in Om Malik, In Reversal of Roles, Veoh Sues Universal, (8/9/2007), available

17 at http://newteevee.com/2007/08/09/in-reversal-of-roles-veoh-sues-universal/.
Brad Stone, The Boat Is About To Rock (Again) In Internet Video, New York Times (6/15/2007) (quoting Veoh board member and Director Todd Dagres, but noting rights holders' 19 complaints "that Veoh has fallen behind in protecting intellectual property"). Veoh's blatant publicity agenda caused Daily Variety to quip: "it's possible Veoh, which has a new CEO who has 20 vowed to get the firm more attention, just wants some publicity. Now that would be a different 21 kind of viral campaign." Veoh Battles Universal Music, Daily Variety (8/10/2007), available at http://www.variety.com/article/VRl 117970046.html?categoryid-2525&cs=l

18

12

Quoted in Veoh seeks court protection from Universal Music, Reuters (8/9/2007), available at http://www.reuters.com/article/industryNews/idUSN0923286220070813. 23 14 Veoh's publicity campaign, like so many, is fundamentally dishonest, and does nothing 24 to change the fact that Veoh is a notorious copyright infringer that fosters and profits from an 25 environment of hardcore copyright piracy. Putting the big picture aside, Veoh's CEO, moreover, could not even get his facts straight about the lawsuit, stating, for example, that "We're not suing 26 them. We're not seeking damages." Quoted in Veoh seeks court protection from Universal Music, Reuters (8/9/2007), supra n.l 1. Veoh's press release similarly states the falsehood that the "action 27 does not seek payment from UMG for damages." Veoh did sue UMG and is seeking damages. 28 Veoh's Complaint - Prayer for Relief f g (asking that "Veoh be awarded its damages").
IRELL & MANELLA LLP
A Registered Limited Liability Law Partnership Including Professional Corporations

22

13

DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS OR TO TRANSFER CASE NO. 07 CV 1568 TJW 1748112

Case 3:07-cv-01568-W-BLM

Document 13

Filed 09/04/2007

Page 15 of 31

1

E.

UMG's Suit Against Veoh. Veoh's preemptory suit left UMG with no choice but to take action. UMG intensified its

2

3 investigation into Veoh and its activities. UMG carefully analyzed Veoh's operations and 4 collected evidence confirming that Veoh is engaging in the rampant direct and indirect 5 infringement of thousands of UMG's works. UMG then prepared and has just filed a Complaint 6 against Veoh in the Central District of California. See Glatstein Decl. Ex. K (UMG Recordings, 7 Inc., et al. v. Veoh Networks, Inc., C.D. Cal. Case No. CV 07-5744 GW (RCx) (filed 9/4/2207). 8 UMG concurrently filed a related case notice and it expects that like the three earlier-filed actions, 9 it will be assigned to Judge Matz. Glatstein Decl. Ex. L.
10
The plaintiffs in UMG's suit against Veoh are copyright owners that UMG's pre-filing

11 investigation determined have copyrighted works that are being infringed by Veoh. The plaintiffs 12 include the companies pursuing the co-pending suits against Grouper, MySpace and Bolt (UMG 13 Recordings, Inc., Universal Music Corp., Song of Universal, Inc., Universal-Polygram 14 International Publishing, Inc., Rondor Music International, Inc.). In addition, three other UMG 15 publishing companies (Universal Music - MGB NA LLC, Universal Music - Z Tunes LLC, and 16 Universal Music - MBG Music Publishing, Ltd.) have asserted claims against Veoh for 17 infringement of their works. Id. These entities were not named as declaratory defendants by 18 Veoh, which apparently conducted no pre-filing investigation of its own. 19
UMG's Complaint properly puts in controversy an actual dispute that is ripe for

20 adjudication. It describes in detail the basis for UMG's claim that Veoh is a direct and indirect 21 infringer of thousands of UMG's copyrights. Veoh can no longer profess ignorance. In 22 responding to UMG's complaint, Veoh will have the opportunity to address the actual issues in 23 dispute between the parties. 24 III. 25 26
VEOH'S COMPLAINT SHOULD BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION Veoh bears the burden of establishing the existence of subject matter jurisdiction.

27 Cardinal Chemical Co. v. Morton Int'l, Inc., 508 U.S. 83, 95 (1993) ("a party seeking a 28 declaratory judgment has the burden of establishing the existence of an actual case or
IRELL & MANELLA LLP
A Registered Limited Liability Law Partnership Including Professional Corporations

1748112

-9-

DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS OR TO TRANSFER CASE NO. 07CV1568TJW

Case 3:07-cv-01568-W-BLM

Document 13

Filed 09/04/2007

Page 16 of 31

1

controversyf.]").15 Article III of the U.S. Constitution prohibits federal courts from issuing

2 advisory opinions, they therefore may not entertain nebulous disputes as they are '"are not pressed 3 before the Court with that clear correctness provided when a question emerges precisely framed 4 and necessary for decision.'" Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 96-97 (1968) (emphasis added) 5 (citation omitted). Absent a "definite and concrete" dispute, there is no subject matter jurisdiction. 6 Medlmmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 764, 771 (2007) (citation omitted). Accordingly, 7 "in the declaratory judgment context, the Supreme Court has admonished that '[t]he disagreement 8 must not be nebulous or contingent but must have taken on fixed and final shape so that a court 9 can see what legal issues it is deciding, what effect its decision will have on the adversaries, and
10 some useful purpose to be achieved in deciding them."' United States v. Arnold, 678 F. Supp. 11 1463,1465-66 (S.D. Cal. 1988) (emphasis added) (citation omitted); see also Westlands Water 12 Dist. Distribution Dist. V. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 276 F. Supp. 2d 1046,1050 13 (E.D. Cal. 2003) (the "Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized the increased likelihood that 14 declaratory judgment actions will fall outside Article III."). Moreover, because Veoh seeks a 15 declaration under the Copyright Act, Veoh must a further threshold subject matter jurisdiction 16 requirement: "[N]o action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall be 17 instituted until registration of the copyright claim has been made" with the Copyright Office. 17 18 U.S.C. §411(a). 19
Veoh's Complaint fails to meet both Article Ill's case or controversy requirement and the

20 Copyright Act's subject matter jurisdiction requirement under Section 411. Veoh's request for an 21 advisory opinion should be dismissed on these two independent grounds. 22 23
A. Veoh Fails To Identify A "Precisely Framed" or "Definite And Concrete" Dispute. What exactly is Veoh's dispute with UMG about? According to Veoh's pleading, UMG

24 claims Veoh is an infringer, and Veoh denies it. Beyond that, Veoh knoweth not. "Veoh does not 25 have knowledge of any activity or material on its system that is infringing alleged UMG
Staacke v. U.S. Secretary of Labor, 841 F.2d 278, 280 (9th Cir. 1988) (citation omitted) (affirming dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction) ("It is well settled that the Declaratory 27 Judgment Act 'does not itself confer federal subject matter jurisdiction,' but merely provides an 28 additional remedy in cases where jurisdiction is otherwise established.").

26

15

IRELL & MANELLA LLP A Registered Limited Liability taw Partnership Including Professional Corporations

1748112

-10-

DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS OR TO TRANSFER CASE NO. 07 CV 1568TJW

Case 3:07-cv-01568-W-BLM

Document 13

Filed 09/04/2007

Page 17 of 31

1

copyrights and is not aware of facts or circumstances from which the infringing activity is

2 apparent[.]" Veoh Complaint ^f 29. UMG allegedly "has not provided any information about the 3 alleged infringement that would allow Veoh to adequately assess UMG's threats." Id. If 65. And 4 Veoh is "[wjithout concrete knowledge of its right or the likelihood of future litigation," it "has no 5 actual knowledge nor is aware of any facts suggesting that infringing activity is apparent," and it

6 "lack[s] knowledge regarding any alleged infringement." Id. fflf 66, 78, 84.
7
With due respect, if Veoh itself does not know what this case concerns, then neither can

8 the Court. And, as such, the "dispute" described by Veoh is neither "precisely framed" nor 9 "definite and concrete" so as to confer on this court subject matter jurisdiction.
10 11
B. Veoh Fails To Identify Any Registered Copyright In Dispute. Which UMG copyrighted works are at issue in this case? Veoh does not say, and says it

12 does not know. Veoh does not identify even one registered copyright in dispute as required by 17 13 U.S.C. § 411 as a condition precedent to this Court's exercise of subject matter jurisdiction. 2 14 Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 7.16[B][l][a] (2007). On this 15 independent basis, Veoh's complaint must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 16 See, e.g.;, Corbis Corp. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 351 F. Supp. 2d 1090, 1112 (W.D. Wash. 2004) 17 (dismissing claims not in compliance with § 411 "for lack of subject matter jurisdiction"); RDF 18 Media Ltd. v. Fox Broadcasting Co., 372 F. Supp. 2d 556, 562 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (§ 411 is a 19 "condition precedent for a court to exercise jurisdiction in an infringement action").16 20 21
C. Veoh Seeks An Impermissible Advisory Opinion. Unmoored from any actual, concrete dispute as to even one registered UMG work, Veoh

22 seeks an unqualified declaration it is not a direct, contributory, or vicarious infringer of any UMG 23 24 25 26 27 28
IRELL & MAN ELLA LLP
A Registered Limited Liability Law Partnership Including Professional Corporations

Veoh should have done its homework before suing. Veoh could, for example, have easily have used Veoh's own search tools to locate UMG works on Veoh's website, Veoh.com, where there are thousands of UMG copyrighted works to be found. Veoh could have used the public records of the Copyright Office to obtain registration numbers. But actually investigating the infringement of UMG works would have forced Veoh to act against its policy of turning a blind eye and demolished Veoh's incredible claim it is completely ignorant of any infringement. The alternative would have been for Veoh to just pick one or two UMG copyright registrations as examples of works that may or may not be in dispute, but that, of course, would have just highlighted the extent to which Veoh is seeking an advisory opinion.
DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS OR TO TRANSFER CASE NO. 07 CV 1568 TJW 1748112
-11 -

16

Case 3:07-cv-01568-W-BLM

Document 13

Filed 09/04/2007

Page 18 of 31

1

copyright and that Veoh it is not inducing infringement of any UMG copyright. Veoh Complaint

2 1f 5 & and Prayer for Relief f| c-d. To provide the declaration sought by Veoh, the Court would 3 be required to scrutinize every aspect of Veoh's business and all of Veoh's conduct to negate the 4 possibility that Veoh is a direct, contributory, or vicarious infringer (and ruling out Veoh's 5 inducing infringement) as to any UMG copyright. Veoh's request for a wide-ranging declaration 6 divorced from any specific dispute is an extreme example of a impermissible request for an 7 advisory opinion. See Coalition for a Healthy California v. F.C.C., 87 F.3d 383, 386 (9th Cir. 8 1996) (dismissing declaratory judgment complaint where the plaintiff was "not seeking ... to 9 resolve a specific dispute ... federal courts have never been empowered to render advisory
10 opinions") (citation omitted). 11
Veoh further requests that the Court declare that "Veoh, as a host of third-party web-based

12 content, is entitled to safe harbor pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)." Veoh Complaint ^f 5. Section 13 512(c) of the DMCA provides an affirmative defense. See Corbis Corp. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 351 14 F. Supp. 2d 1090, 1098-99 (W.D. Wash. 2004) (DMCA is affirmative defense). Veoh's attempt to 15 obtain a broad declaration about its anticipated this affirmative defense in the factual vacuum of 16 Veoh's pleading similarly invites an advisory opinion .17 Contrary to Veoh's suggestion, Section 17 512(c) does not accord some sort of blanket immunity from infringement liability to which a 18 company may be "entitled" or not. To the contrary, the DMCA safe harbor under Section 512(c) 19 applies only to specific activities of companies that qualify as "service providers" -- namely 20 "storage at the direction of a user of material that resides on a system or network controlled or 21 operated by or for the service provider" (and only then if the "service provider" meets all the other 22 requirements). 17 U.S.C. § 512(c). Given Veoh's failure to identify any specific infringing 23 24 25 26 27 28
IRELL&MANELLALLP
A Registered Limited Liability Law Partnership Including Professional Corporations

Declaratory judgment actions that are just attempts to anticipate affirmative defenses are disfavored, and "numerous courts have refused to grant declaratory relief to a party who has come to the court only to assert an anticipatory defense." Gribin v. Hammer Galleries, a Div. of Hammer Holding, Inc., 793 F. Supp. 233, 235 (C.D. Cal. 1992) (citing, inter alia, Armerada Petroleum Corp. v. Marshall, 381 F.2d 661 (5th Cir. 1967); Cunningham Bros., Inc. v. Bail, 407 F.2d 1165, 1167 (7th Cir. 1969)). For example, the Court in State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v. Taylor, 118 F.R.D. 426 (M.D. N.C. 1988), examined the issue in detail and concluded that "[t]he anticipation of defenses is not a proper use of the declaratory judgment procedure." Id. at 429-30 (quoting Hanes Corp. v. Milord, 531 F.2d 585, 592-93 (D.C. Cir. 1976)).
DEFENDANTS1 MOTION TO DISMISS OR TO TRANSFER CASE NO. 07CV1568TJW

17

1748112

- 12-

Case 3:07-cv-01568-W-BLM

Document 13

Filed 09/04/2007

Page 19 of 31

1

conduct in dispute, it is not possible to determine whether analysis of Section 512(c) is warranted

2 at all, much less applicable to some unspecified Veoh conduct with respect to an unspecified 3 UMG work. 4
The misguided nature of Veoh's attempt to obtain an advisory ruling on an affirmative

5 defense without reference to a specific claim of infringement can be further appreciated when one 6 leaves the abstraction of Veoh's nebulous Complaint, and considers instead the particular acts of 7 infringement alleged by UMG in its Complaint. Among other things, UMG alleges that Veoh 8 operates a Napster-like peer-to-peer network called "Veohnet" that is used to facilitate copyright 9 infringement; Veoh distributes free software to facilitate copyright infringement; Veoh reformats
10 videos to so they can be downloaded more easily to a variety of platforms; Veoh provides the 11 public with free downloads of videos on demand. This Veoh conduct, alleged by UMG as part of 12 the basis for its claims, has nothing remotely to do with "storage at the direction of a user," or the 13 DMCA safe harbor provisions. 14
In sum, Veoh is not entitled to any advisory opinion, whether framed as a wide-ranging

15 request concerning all of Veoh's conduct and all of UMG's copyright, or a request for an opinion 16 about the hypothetical applicability of a single affirmative defense. Veoh's complaint should be 17 dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 18 IV. 19 20
VEOH'S TACTICAL SUIT SHOULD BE DISMISSED AS AN ABUSE OF THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT Even if Veoh's pleadings were sufficient to articulate a "case or controversy," the Court

21 should still dismiss Veoh's Complaint as a matter of its discretion because Veoh filed it for an 22 improper tactical purposes. The exercise of jurisdiction in a declaratory judgment action is 23 discretionary. 28 U.S.C. § 2201 (the Court "may declare the rights and other legal relations..."); 24 Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277,286 (1995) (the Declaratory Judgment Act provides 25 "conferfs] on federal courts unique and substantial discretion in deciding whether to declare the 26 rights of litigants"). Courts have held that it is an abuse of the Declaratory Judgment Act to file 27 suit for tactical purposes. Gribin v. Hammer Galleries, a Div. of Hammer Holding, Inc., 793 F. 28 Supp. 233, 236 (C.D. Cal. 1992) (Declaratory Judgment Act "is not a tactical device whereby a
IRELL & MANELLA LLP A Registered Limited Liability Law Partnership including Professional Corporations

1748112

-13-

DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS OR TO TRANSFER CASE NO. 07 CV 1568 TJW

Case 3:07-cv-01568-W-BLM

Document 13

Filed 09/04/2007

Page 20 of 31

1

party who would be a defendant in a coercive action may choose to be plaintiff if he can beat the

2 other party to the courthouse") (quotation marks and citations omitted). For that reason, courts 3 decline to exercise jurisdiction over declaratory judgment matters if they appear to have been file 4 for tactical purposes. 5
For example, in EMC Corp. v. Norand Corp., 89 F.3d 807 (Fed. Cir. 1996), overruled in

6 part on other grounds, Medlmmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., -- U.S. --, 127 S. Ct. 764 (2007), the 7 declaratory judgment plaintiff "had taken the step [of filing suit] because its management 'thought 8 it was in their interest to protect themselves first and continue discussions.'" Id. at 809 (quoting 9 plaintiffs attorney). The district court concluded and the Federal Circuit agreed that "to allow a
10 declaratory judgment action to proceed under such circumstances would encourage parties who 11 were negotiating with patentees to use the declaratory judgment procedure to improve their 12 bargaining positions." Id. at 810. 13
This disapproval of tactical, premature declaratory judgment filings accords with the

14 decisions of other courts that "it would be inappropriate to reward--and indeed abet--conduct 15 which is inconsistent with the sound policy of promoting extrajudicial dispute resolution, and 16 conservation of judicial resources." Davox Corp. v. Digital Systems Intern., Inc., 846 F. Supp. 17 144,148 (D. Mass. 1993); see also, e.g., Bausch & Lomb Inc. v. Alcide Corp., 684 F. Supp. 1155, 18 1160 (W.D.N.Y. 1987) (refusing to exercise jurisdiction); Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc. v. 19 Schneider, 435 F. Supp. 742, 747 (S.D.N.Y. 1977) (staying first-filed action) ("[a]s federal court 20 calendars become increasingly burdened, attorneys should exercise a correspondingly increased 21 responsibility to attempt to resolve disputes without using limited judicial resources to decide 22 issues which might, by reasonable discussions between reasonable people, be settled out of 23 court"). 24
In its rush to create good buzz about Veoh as a "white-hat" company, Veoh brought suit

25 prematurely. According to Veoh, it did not know the basis for an infringement claim and UMG 26 stated that it was "investigating" Veoh - nothing more. Veoh's CEO apparently did not think that 27 the discussions with UMG were over, and he made a point of telling a reporter "I still hope to 28
IRELL & MANELLA LLP
A Registered Limited Liability Law Partnership Including Professional Corporations

1748112

- 14-

DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS OR TO TRANSFER CASE NO. 07 CV 1568 TJW

Case 3:07-cv-01568-W-BLM

Document 13

Filed 09/04/2007

Page 21 of 31

1

work constructively with Universal."18 Veoh apparently hoped that filing its Complaint would

2 improve its bargaining position vis-a-vis UMG in a negotiation. 3
As shown by Veoh's "serving" a press release in tandem with launching the suit, its

4 immediate "bold move" update of Veoh's Wikipedia entry and numerous calls Veoh's CEO put in 5 to reporters, Veoh brought suit not because of the need to remove any "Damoclean threat of 6 impending litigation," but rather as a public relations move. Again, in the words of Veoh's 7 CEO, "the reason Veoh took this action is because the company wanted the courts, content owners 8 and others to know that it is compliant with DMCA and Fair Use rules and has been working with 9 content owners to put best practices in place."20 Notably absent in this explanation is any mention
10 of UMG's supposed "threat." Veoh's message to the "courts,[21] content owners and others" is 11 rather Veoh's "white-hat company" theme. What "the company wanted" the world "to know" 12 includes issues that are not even part of Veoh's preemptory Complaint, e.g., that Veoh is allegedly 13 compliant with the "fair use rules" and that it is working "to put best practices in place." 14
The tactical nature of Veoh's suit is further revealed when one considers Veoh's choice of

15 venue; specifically, its decision to evade the Central District of California. Even ignoring the 16 efficiencies and cost-savings that would be derived from filing in the Central District where the 17 related litigation with overlapping and identical issues has been underway for nearly a year, the 18 Central District, specifically Los Angeles, is Veoh's own forum of choice. Veoh's Terms of Use 19 ("TOU"), which Veoh purports protect Veoh from liability provide: "You expressly consent to the 20 21
Kenneth Li, Veoh seeks court protection from Universal Music (8/9/2007), available at http ://www.reuters.com/article/industrvNews/idUSNQ923286220070813
19 18

"The purpose of the Declaratory Judgment Act is 'to relieve potential defendants from 22 the Damoclean threat of impending litigation which a harassing adversary might brandish, while initiating suit at his leisure -- or never.'" Hal Roach Studios Inc. v. RichardFeiner & Co., Inc., 896 23 F.2d. 1542,1556 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting Societe de Conditionnement v. Hunter Engineering Co., 24 655 F.2d 938 ,943 (9th Cir. 1981)). 20 Quoted in Om Malik, In Reversal of Roles, Veoh Sues Universal, (8/9/2007), available 25 at http://newteevee.com/2007/08/09/in-reversal-of-roles-veoh-sues-universal/. It is unclear what Mr. Mitgang had in mind by "courts." Veoh is currently a defendant in the case of lo Group v. Veoh, Networks, N.D. Cal. Case No. C06-3926 HRL, in which Veoh was 27 sued for infringing certain gay male pornographic movies during a three week period. The parties 28 recently filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

26

21

IRELL&MANELLALLP
A Registered Limited Liability Law Partnership Including Professional Corporations

1748112

-15-

DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS OR TO TRANSFER CASE NO. 07CV1568TJW

Case 3:07-cv-01568-W-BLM

Document 13

Filed 09/04/2007

Page 22 of 31

1

personal and exclusive jurisdiction and venue of the state and federal courts located in Los

2 Angeles County of the State of California for any claim or action arising out of or relating to these 3 TOU or your use of the Veoh Service." Glatstein Decl. Ex. M (Veoh Terms of Use). A link to 4 Veoh's TOU is right on Veoh's home page. See Veoh - Terms of Use, available at 5 http://www.veoh.com/corporate/termsofuse.html. Veoh's Complaint makes Veoh's TOU a critical 6 component of Veoh's theory of why it is not liable to UMG: "the TOU agreement contained on 7 Veoh.com protects Veoh from any claims for violation of copyright... Because all registered 8 users ofVeoh.com must electronically accept the TOU, Veoh is not liable for content posted by 9 registered users." Veoh Complaint f| 73-74; see also id. |f 35-38,44 (citing TOU). Veoh's flight
10 from its own exclusive forum of choice - Los Angeles - to file this preemptory suit could not be 11 more telling that its choice of forum was driven by tactical considerations. 12
Forum shopping, and using a declaratory judgment suit to improve bargaining leverage and

13 as a vehicle to spin positive press, are wholly improper uses of the Declaratory Judgment Act. 14 The exercise of jurisdiction under the circumstances at bar would reward tactical behavior and 15 create an incentive to file a declaratory judgment action for purposes wholly unrelated to the 16 declaration of the litigants' rights.22 The Court should not reward Veoh's tactics, but it rather 17 should decline to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction and dismiss on that second independent 18 basis. 19 V. 20 21
IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THE CASE SHOULD BE TRANSFERRED TO THE CENTRAL DISTRICT "For the convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the interests of justice, a district court

22 may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought." 23 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).23 The Supreme Court has explained that "the purpose of [§ 1404(a)] is to
Indeed, Veoh will have the opportunity to litigate its defenses under the DMCA by virtue of UMG's Central District Complaint against Veoh. 25 23 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) "serves as a statutory substitute for forum non conveniens in federal 26 court when the alternative forum is within the territory of the United States." Ravelo Monegro v. Rosa, 211 F.3d 509, 512-13 (9th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, "forum non conveniens considerations 27 are helpful in deciding a § 1404 transfer motion." Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 28 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986). Because of their common law history, courts sometimes relate
IRELL & MAN ELL A LLP
A Registered Limited Liability Law Partnership Including Professional Corporations

24

22

1748112

-16-

DEFENDANTS1 MOTION TO DISMISS OR TO TRANSFER CASE NO. 07 CV 1568 TJW

Case 3:07-cv-01568-W-BLM

Document 13

Filed 09/04/2007

Page 23 of 31

1

prevent the waste of 'time, energy and money1 and 'to protect litigants, witnesses and the public

2 against unnecessary inconvenience and expense.'" Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616 3 (1964) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (quoting Continental Grain Co. v. The 4 FBL-585, 364 U.S. 19, 26, 27 (I960)); see also Continental Grain Co. 364 U.S. at 26-27 5 (affirming transfer to district court with similar action). 6
It understates matters to say this case could have been brought in the Central District. But

7 for tactical maneuverings it should have been brought there. While dismissal outright is 8 preferable, transfer would at least facilitate coordination between Veoh's action and UMG's similar 9 actions against other video-sharing websites. Transfer serves the interests of justice and also the
10 convenience of the parties and witnesses. 11 12 13
A. Veoh Could Have Brought, And Should Have Brought, Its Action in the Central District. A transfer is only proper to a district where the action "might have been brought." 28

14 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Veoh could have brought its action in the Central District of California for three 15 independently sufficient reasons: First, UMG was subject to personal jurisdiction in the Central 16 District, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(l), 1391(c); second, a "substantial part of the events or omissions 17 giving rise to the claim occurred" in the Central District, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(2); and third, "a 18 substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated" in the Central District, 28 19 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(2). A transfer to the Central District meets the first requirement of 28 U.S.C. 20 § 1404(a). As noted, moreover, Los Angeles, is also Veoh's own chosen exclusive forum for 21 adjudicating matters concerning TOU that Veoh contends is central to its defense and to resolve 22 disputes concerning the Veoh services that will front and center in any litigation concerning 23 Veoh's infringing activities. 24 25 26 the § 1404(a) "convenience" test to the forum non conveniens "private interest factors," while the 27 factors." See, e.g., Amazon.com v. Cendant Corp., 404 F. Supp. 2d 1256, 1259 (W.D. Wash. 28 2005).
IRELL&MANELLALLP
A Registered Limited Liability Law Partnership Including Professional Corporations

interest of justice test corresponds to the forum non conveniens concept of "public interest

1748112

-17-

DEFENDANTS1 MOTION TO DISMISS OR TO TRANSFER CASE NO. 07CV1568TJW

Case 3:07-cv-01568-W-BLM

Document 13

Filed 09/04/2007

Page 24 of 31

1

B.

The Interest of Justice Favors Transfer to Facilitate Coordination with UMG's Pending Actions Against Other "Video-Sharing" Services. A transfer is proper where--as here--it is "in the interest of justice." 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

2 3

4 The "interest of justice" analysis requires that courts consider the superior forum for '"ensuring 5 speedy trials, trying related litigation together, and having a judge who is familiar with the 6 applicable law try the case.'" Amazon.com v. Cendant Corp., 404 F. Supp. 2d 1256,1261 (W.D. 7 Wash. 2005) (quoting Heller Financial, Inc., v. Midwhey Powder Co., 883 F.2d 1286,1293 (7th 8 Cir. 1989)). The interest of justice analysis may be an independently sufficient basis for transfer: 9 '"Consideration of the interest of justice, which includes judicial economy, may be determinative
10 to a particular transfer motion, even if the convenience of the parties and witnesses might call for a 11 different result.'" Id. (quoting Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly and Company, 12 119 F.3d 1559, 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). 13
Transfer to the Central District is in the interest of justice because it will allow

14 coordination with UMG's pending actions against Grouper, Bolt, and MySpace. As the Supreme 15 Court explained, "[t]o permit a situation in which two cases involving precisely the same issues 16 are simultaneously pending in different District Courts leads to the wastefulness of time, energy 17 and money that § 1404(a) was designed to prevent." Continental Grain Co., 364 U.S. at 26; see 18 also Heller Financial, Inc., 883 F.2d at 1293 (courts should consider the benefit from "trying 19 related litigation together, and having a judge who is familiar with the applicable law try the 20 case"). 21
Facilitating coordination of related cases within a single district precisely tracks the policy

22 rationale behind § 1404(a) as articulated by the Supreme Court in Van Dusen and Continental 23 Grain Co. Accordingly, transfer to a district with a pending, related case is a frequently-cited and 24 independently sufficient basis for a transfer. See also A.J. Industries, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court for 25 Central Dist. Of California, 503 F.2d 384, 389 (9th Cir. 1974); Jolly v. Purdue PharmaL.P., 2005 26 WL 2439197 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (transferring to district with pending similar action); Republic of 27 Bolivia v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc., 39 F. Supp. 2d 1008, 1009-10 (S.D. Tex. 1999) (same); 28 Posven, C.A. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 303 F. Supp. 2d 391, 406 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (same); Durham
IRELL&MANELLALLP
A Registered Limited Liability Law Partnership Including Professional Corporations

1748112

-18-

DEFENDANTS1 MOTION TO DISMISS OR TO TRANSFER CASE NO. 07CV1568TJW

Case 3:07-cv-01568-W-BLM

Document 13

Filed 09/04/2007

Page 25 of 31

1

Prods, Inc. v. Sterling Film Portfolio, Ltd., Series A, 537 F. Supp. 1241,1243 (S.D.N.Y. 1982)

2 (same).24 3
For example, mA.J. Industries, 503 F.2d at 389, the Ninth Circuit upheld a district court's

4 transfer order based in part on the existence of a pending, related action in another district. The 5 A. J. Industries Court explicitly rejected the contention that anything less than complete 6 consolidation was necessary before granting a transfer motion: "[E]ven the pendency of an action 7 in another district is important because of the positive effects it might have in possible 8 consolidation of discovery and convenience to witnesses and parties." Id. (emphasis added) 9 (citing Schneider v. Sears, 265 F. Supp. 257 (S.D.N.Y. 1967)). As Schneider explains,
10 11 12 13 14 15
There is a strong policy favoring the litigation of claims in the same tribunal in order that: (1) pretrial discovery can be conducted more efficiently; (2) the witnesses can be saved time and money, both with respect to pretrial and trial proceedings; (3) duplicitous litigation can be avoided, thereby eliminating unnecessary expense to the parties and at the time serving the public interest; (4) inconsistent results can be avoided.

16 256 F. Supp. at 266-27. See also Durham Products, 537 F. Supp. at 1244 ("litigation of related 17 claims in the same tribunal is strongly favored because it facilitates efficient, economical and 18 expeditious pre-trial proceedings and discovery and avoids [duplicative] litigation and 19 inconsistent results") (emphasis added; citation and quotation marks omitted). 20
Similarly, Republic of Bolivia, 39 F. Supp. 2d at 1008, involved one of several actions by

21 various foreign governments against tobacco companies. In that case, the district court sua sponte 22 transferred the action from Texas to the District of Columbia, explaining that transfer would allow 23 for consolidation with six other pending actions by other foreign governments against tobacco 24 companies. Id. at 1009 ("proceedings brought by the Republic of Guatemala are currently well 25 underway in that Court in a related action"); see also Jolly v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 2005 WL 26 27
See also Falconwood Financial Corp. v. Griffin, 838 F. Supp. 836, 843 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) 28 (transferring, despite parties' forum selection clause, to avoid duplicative litigation).
IRELL&MANELLALLP
A Registered Limited Liability Law Partnership including Professional Corporations

24

1748112

-19-

DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS OR TO TRANSFER CASENO.07CV1568TJW

Case 3:07-cv-01568-W-BLM

Document 13

Filed 09/04/2007

Page 26 of 31

1 2439197 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (explaining that the interest of justice "strongly" favors transfers from

2 S.D. Cal. to S.D.N.Y. where similar litigation was pending). 3
Veoh's decision to file in the Southern District rather than the Central District despite the

4 detriment to overall judicial economy caused by inefficient, parallel litigations, was motivated by 5 tactical considerations that are antithetical to the interests of justice. As but a few examples of the 6 predictable inefficiency likely to result from Veoh's forum choice: two courts will need to 7 familiarize themselves with the copyright law applicable to websites; two courts will need to study 8 the case law relating to the DMCA; two courts will need to familiarize themselves with the 9 technical operation of "video sharing" sites; two courts will need to learn about the music industry
10 in general, and UMG in particular, in order to resolve issues relating to copyright ownership and 11 damages; two courts will need to hear motions for protective orders by third-parties, and third12 parties will need to bring two such motions. In short, the parallel, uncoordinated litigation of 13 similar actions with overlapping and some instances identical issues in the Southern District and 14 Central District would result in a certain but preventable waste of judicial resources, and the 15 parties' and non-parties' time and money. Accordingly, the interest of justice strongly favors 16 transfer to the Central District. 17
Finally, some courts consider relative docket congestion, measured by the median number

18 of months from filing to trial, as part of the transfer analysis, reasoning that the interest of justice 19 is served by a transfer to a relatively less congested district. See Saleh, 36 F. Supp. 2d at 1167 20 (comparing median time from filing a suit until trial in S.D. Cal. and E.D. Va., and transferring to 21 the latter). A