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
1764170
UMG’S OPPOSITION TO VEOH’S EX PARTE
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUR-REPLY
IRELL & MANELLA LLP
A Registered Limited Liability
Law Partnership Including
Professional Corporations
Steven A. Marenberg (101033) (smarenberg@irell.com)
Elliot Brown (150802) (ebrown@irell.com)
Benjamin Glatstein (242034) (bglatstein@irell.com)
IRELL & MANELLA LLP
1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
Los Angeles, California 90067-4276
Telephone: (310) 277-1010
Facsimile: (310) 203-7199
Attorneys for Declaratory Defendants
UMG Recordings, Inc.;
Universal Music Corp.;
Songs of Universal, Inc.;
Universal-Polygram International Publishing, Inc.;
and Rondor Music International, Inc.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN DIEGO DIVISION
VEOH NETWORKS, INC., a California
corporation,
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
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).
Case 3:07-cv-01568-W-BLM Document 25 Filed 10/12/2007 Page 1 of 3
Veoh Networks, Inc. v. UMG Recordings, Inc. et al Doc. 25
Dockets.Justia.com
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
1764170 1
UMG’S OPPOSITION TO VEOH’S EX PARTE
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUR-REPLY
IRELL & MANELLA LLP
A Registered Limited Liability
Law Partnership Including
Professional Corporations
I. DISCUSSION
Declaratory Defendants UMG Recordings, Inc., Universal Music Corp., Songs of
Universal, Inc., Universal-Polygram International Publishing, Inc., and Rondor Music
International, Inc. (collectively, “UMG”) oppose Veoh Networks, Inc.’s (“Veoh”) Ex Parte
Application for Leave to submit a Sur-Reply for the following reasons:
1. Veoh’s application is procedurally improper and fails to show an emergency
necessitating ex parte relief. Indeed, Veoh delayed more than a week after receiving UMG’s
Reply before filing its “emergency” application just one day before the hearing date.
2. The primary premise of Veoh’s justification for the Sur-Reply is wrong. Contrary
to Veoh’s inflammatory and unwarranted accusations, UMG correctly advised this Court of the
facts concerning Judge Matz’s determination that the Veoh claims were related to other currently
pending mass infringement cases in the Central District of California, including UMG v. Myspace,
Inc. and UMG v. Grouper Networks, Inc.
Specifically, Veoh incorrectly states that Judge Matz did not really find that the cases were
related when he issued an Order containing such findings. The General Order governing handling
of related case notices in the Central District of California provides that:
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.
Central District G. O. 7-2-5.2 (emphasis added).
Veoh selectively quotes the Central District’s General Order to suggest that Judge Matz
was required to rubberstamp or did rubberstamp a “proposed” transfer order based on UMG’s
representations. Veoh’s assertions are false. Judge Matz issued a court order transferring the case
to his docket after determining that UMG’s Central District action against Veoh is related to
Case 3:07-cv-01568-W-BLM Document 25 Filed 10/12/2007 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
1764170 2
UMG’S OPPOSITION TO VEOH’S EX PARTE
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUR-REPLY
IRELL & MANELLA LLP
A Registered Limited Liability
Law Partnership Including
Professional Corporations
UMG’s pending actions in the Central District. Any suggestion to the contrary in Veoh’s
proposed Sur-Reply is wrong.
II. CONCLUSION
Veoh has failed to show good cause for leave to file its Sur-Reply. Its Ex Parte
Application should be denied and its Sur-Reply rejected. Nothing in the Sur-Reply changes the
facts that:
• 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.
Case 3:07-cv-01568-W-BLM Document 25 Filed 10/12/2007 Page 3 of 3
