Universal Tube & Rollform Equipment Corporation v. YouTube, Inc.

Filing 17

Universal Tube & Rollform Equipment Corporation v. YouTube, Inc.

Doc. 17

Case 3:06-cv-02628-JGC

Document 17

Filed 02/23/2007

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

Universal Tube & Rollform Equipment Corporation Plaintiff

Case No. 06-2628

Chief Judge James G. Carr -vsYouTube, Inc. and Chad Hurley and Steve Chen Defendants REPORT OF PARTIES' PLANNING MEETING UNDER FED.R.CIV.P.26(F) and Local rule 16.3(b)

1. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.26(f) and Local Rule 16.3(b), a meeting was held on February 20, 2007, and was attended by: Anthony J. DeGidio, Jr. Counsel for Plaintiff Universal Tube & Rollform Equipment Corp. Richard G. Martin Counsel for Plaintiff Universal Tube & Rollform Equipment Corp. Michael H. Page Counsel for Defendant YouTube, Inc.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 3:06-cv-02628-JGC 2. The parties:

Document 17

Filed 02/23/2007

Page 2 of 3

______ have exchanged the pre-discovery disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1) and the Court's prior order; will exchange such disclosures 14 days after the ruling on Defendant's motion X to dismiss; ______ have not been required to make initial disclosures. 3. The parties recommend the following track: _____Expedited _____Administrative 4. X Standard _____Complex

_____Mass Tort

This case is suitable for one or more of the following Alternative Dispute Resolution ("ADR") mechanisms: _____Early Neutral Evaluation X Mediation (Not initially but perhaps after discovery is complete.) _____Arbitration _____Summary Jury Trial _____Summary Bench Trial _____Case not suitable for ADR

5.

The parties____do/ X do not consent to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c). Recommended Discovery Plan: (a) Describe the subjects on which discovery is to be sought and the nature and extent of discovery. Defendants anticipate taking discovery in the following general areas: The acquisition, use, and registration of any claimed trademarks; whether Universal's marks have achieved secondary meaning or fame; any harm allegedly suffered by Universal; Universal's ownership of any chattel or property upon which defendants are alleged to have trespassed; any evidence of actual or likelihood of confusion; Universal's decision to monetize traffic from persons arriving at its website when trying to reach YouTube; Universal's revenues and expenditures in connection with its website at all relevant times. Defendants dispute whether Plaintiff's intended scope of discovery is proper. Plaintiff anticipates seeking discovery related to the elements and defenses of its claims including knowledge and planning by Youtube of its illegal acts and its knowledge of Plaintiff, likelihood of confusion, evidence relating to infringement of copyrighted works, acts taken by Youtube to prevent the publishing of infringing works, evidence of damages including Youtube's sales and profits, and evidence relating to Youtube's growth based upon the provision of infringing works.

6.

Case 3:06-cv-02628-JGC

Document 17

Filed 02/23/2007

Page 3 of 3

(b) Discovery cut-off date: Six months after the close of pleadings. 7. 8. Recommended dispositive motion date: Two months after the close of discovery. Recommended cut-off for amending the pleadings and/or adding additional parties: Thirty days after the due date for Plaintiff's answer to counterclaims. Recommended date for a status hearing: To be discussed at the Case Management Conference. Other matters for the attention of the Court: None

9.

10.

Attorney for Plaintiffs: ___/s/ Anthony J. DeGidio Jr_____________ Anthony J. DiGidio, Jr. Attorney for Defendants: /s/ Michael H. Page (per telephonic consent) Michael H. Page

7