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

Filing 25

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

Doc. 25

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

Document 25

Filed 10/12/2007

Page 1 of 3

1 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 Declaratory Defendants 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 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO DIVISION ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) ) vs. ) ) ) UMG RECORDINGS, INC., a Delaware ) Corporation; UNIVERSAL MUSIC CORP., a ) New York corporation; SONGS OF ) UNIVERSAL, INC., a California corporation; ) UNIVERSAL-POLYGRAM ) INTERNATIONAL PUBLISHING, INC., a ) Delaware corporation; RONDOR MUSIC ) INTERNATIONAL, INC., a California ) corporation; and DOES 1-10 INCLUSIVE, ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) Case No. 07 CV 1568 TJW (BLM) UMG'S OPPOSITION TO VEOH NETWORKS, INC.'S EX PARTE APPLICATION REQUESTING PERMISSION TO FILE SUR-REPLY IN SUPPORT OF VEOH'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS

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

Date: October 15, 2007 Time: 10:00 a.m. Judge: Hon. Thomas J. Whelan Courtroom: 7 No Oral Argument Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d).

UMG'S OPPOSITION TO VEOH'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUR-REPLY 1764170

Dockets.Justia.com

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

Document 25

Filed 10/12/2007

Page 2 of 3

1 2

I.

DISCUSSION

Declaratory Defendants UMG Recordings, Inc., Universal Music Corp., Songs of

3 Universal, Inc., Universal-Polygram International Publishing, Inc., and Rondor Music 4 International, Inc. (collectively, "UMG") oppose Veoh Networks, Inc.'s ("Veoh") Ex Parte 5 Application for Leave to submit a Sur-Reply for the following reasons: 6 1. Veoh's application is procedurally improper and fails to show an emergency

7 necessitating ex parte relief. Indeed, Veoh delayed more than a week after receiving UMG's 8 Reply before filing its "emergency" application just one day before the hearing date. 9 2. The primary premise of Veoh's justification for the Sur-Reply is wrong. Contrary

10 to Veoh's inflammatory and unwarranted accusations, UMG correctly advised this Court of the 11 facts concerning Judge Matz's determination that the Veoh claims were related to other currently 12 pending mass infringement cases in the Central District of California, including UMG v. Myspace, 13 Inc. and UMG v. Grouper Networks, Inc. 14 Specifically, Veoh incorrectly states that Judge Matz did not really find that the cases were

15 related when he issued an Order containing such findings. The General Order governing handling 16 of related case notices in the Central District of California provides that: 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Whenever a party files a Notice of Related Cases indicating that any one or more of the above circumstances set forth in Section 5.1 exist, the Clerk shall prepare a proposed transfer order to be reviewed by the judge to whom the case first filed was assigned (the transferee judge). ... If the transferee judge approves the transfer, the case shall be transferred to the calendar of the transferee judge. If the transferee judge declines the related case transfer, the case shall proceed as originally assigned on the calendar of the transferor judge.

24 Central District G. O. 7-2-5.2 (emphasis added). 25 Veoh selectively quotes the Central District's General Order to suggest that Judge Matz

26 was required to rubberstamp or did rubberstamp a "proposed" transfer order based on UMG's 27 representations. Veoh's assertions are false. Judge Matz issued a court order transferring the case 28 to his docket after determining that UMG's Central District action against Veoh is related to
IRELL & MANELLA LLP
A Registered Limited Liability Law Partnership Including Professional Corporations

UMG'S OPPOSITION TO VEOH'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUR-REPLY 1764170

1

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

Document 25

Filed 10/12/2007

Page 3 of 3

1 UMG's pending actions in the Central District. Any suggestion to the contrary in Veoh's 2 proposed Sur-Reply is wrong. 3 4 II. CONCLUSION

Veoh has failed to show good cause for leave to file its Sur-Reply. Its Ex Parte

5 Application should be denied and its Sur-Reply rejected. Nothing in the Sur-Reply changes the 6 facts that: 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
IRELL & MANELLA LLP
A Registered Limited Liability Law Partnership Including Professional Corporations

·

Veoh filed to identify even a single copyrighted work at issue in this case, or otherwise articulate a concrete dispute;

· ·

Veoh is seeking an improper advisory opinion in this action; and Efficiency would be served by having this case handled in the Central District before Judge Matz, where multiple related actions are already pending.

Dated: October 12, 2007

Respectfully Submitted, IRELL & MANELLA LLP

By:

/s/ Elliot Brown Steven A. Marenberg 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.

UMG'S OPPOSITION TO VEOH'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUR-REPLY 1764170

2