High Quality
Open the downloaded document, and select print from the file menu (PDF reader required).
Case 2:07-cv-06835-AHM-AJW Document 141-3 Filed 02/18/2009 Page 1 of 23
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
JOINT STIPULATION RE UMG’S MOTION TO COMPEL: CV07-06835
RONALD L. JOHNSTON (State Bar No. 57418)Ronald.Johnston@aporter.comSEAN MORRIS (State Bar No. 200368)Sean.Morris@aporter.comRYAN M. NISHIMOTO (State Bar No. 235208)Ryan.Nishimoto@aporter.comARNOLD & PORTER LLP777 South Figueroa Street, 44th FloorLos Angeles, California 90017-5844Telephone: 213.243.4000Facsimile: 213.243.4199
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
UMG RECORDINGS, INC,
et al.
[Additional Counsel Listed on Signature Page]UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIAUMG RECORDINGS, INC.,
et al
.,Plaintiffs,v.DIVX, INC., a Delaware corporation;DOES 1-10, inclusive,Defendants.Case No. CV 07-06835 AHM (AJWx)
JOINT STIPULATION PURSUANTTO LOCAL RULE 37-2REGARDING UMG’S MOTION TOCOMPEL RESPONSES TODISCOVERY FROM DIVX, INC.[Filed concurrently with: Notice of Motion; Declaration of Sean Morris;Declaration of Lee Milstein]
Date: January 26, 2009Time: 10:00 a.m.Courtroom: 690Judge: Hon. Andrew J. WistrichCase Filed: 10-22-07Discovery Cutoff: 6-1-09Pretrial Conference: 11-2-09Trial Date: 11-17-09
Case 2:07-cv-06835-AHM-AJW Document 99 Filed 01/05/2009 Page 1 of 22
Ex. B, Pg. 4
Case 2:07-cv-06835-AHM-AJW Document 141-3 Filed 02/18/2009 Page 2 of 23
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
JOINT STIPULATION RE UMG’S MOTION TO COMPEL: CV07-06835
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PageI. INTRODUCTORY STATEMENTS ..................................................................1A. UMG’s Introductory Statement ................................................................1B. DivX’s Introductory Statement.................................................................3II.VERBATIM STATEMENT OF DISCOVERY REQUESTS IN ISSUEAND CONTENTIONS CONCERNING EACH REQUEST.............................4UMG’S CONTENTIONS REGARDING DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 2...............4A.UMG Is Entitled to Identify Additional Infringed Works, ButDivX Has Refused To Permit UMG Access To The Information............5B. UMG Proposed A Reasonable Means To Obtain The InformationNecessary To Identify Works At Issue, But DivX Refuses ToPermit UMG Access To The Database.....................................................7C. UMG Has Already Filed A Motion To Extend The Deadline ToIdentify Works Until A Reasonable Period After UMG Is GivenAccess To DivX’s Database Of Works...................................................11DIVX’S CONTENTIONS REGARDING DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 2 ............12A. Judge Matz Correctly Recognized that UMG’s Demand for theEntire Contents of the Stage6 Site is Unreasonable................................12B. UMG’s Request for All Removed Videos is Overbroad and SeeksInformation That Is Not Relevant to Any Issue in the Case...................141. UMG Has Not Made a Relevance Justification forProduction of the 750,000+ Videos from the Stage6Service...........................................................................................152. DivX’s Proposal Addresses UMG’s RelevanceConcern and Accounts for the Overbreadth of UMG’s Request ............................................................................16C. UMG Seeks Through its Demand to Impose Undue Burden onDivX........................................................................................................17III. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................19A. UMG’s Conclusion .................................................................................19B. DivX’s Conclusion..................................................................................19
Case 2:07-cv-06835-AHM-AJW Document 99 Filed 01/05/2009 Page 2 of 22
Ex. B, Pg. 5
Case 2:07-cv-06835-AHM-AJW Document 141-3 Filed 02/18/2009 Page 3 of 23
Add a Comment