UMG Recordings, Inc. et al v. Veoh Networks, Inc. et al Doc. 78 1 Re: Docket # 71 Steven A. Marenberg (101033) ([email protected]) 2 Elliot Brown (150802) ([email protected]) Brian Ledahl (186579) ([email protected]) 3 Benjamin Glatstein (242034) ([email protected]) IRELL & MANELLA LLP 4 1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900 Los Angeles, California 90067-4276 5 Telephone: (310) 277-1010 Facsimile: (310) 203-7199 6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 7 ADDITIONAL COUNSEL LISTED 8 ON SIGNATURE PAGE 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 WESTERN DIVISION 12 13 UMG RECORDINGS, INC., et al., ) Case No. CV-07-05744 AHM (AJWx) 14 ) ) JOINT STIPULATION UNDER 15 Plaintiffs, ) LOCAL RULE 37-2 REGARDING ) UMG RECORDINGS, INC.’S 16 ) MOTION TO COMPEL v. ) RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY 17 ) AGAINST VEOH NETWORKS, INC. ) 18 VEOH NETWORKS, INC., ) Filed Concurrently Herewith: ) [Declaration of Brian Ledahl and 19 ) Jennifer A. Golinveaux] Defendant. ) 20 ) ) Magistrate: Hon. Andrew J. Wistrich 21 ) ) Date: August 11, 2008 22 ) Time: 10:00 a.m. ) Courtroom: 690 23 ) ) Discovery Cutoff: January 12, 2009 24 ) Pretrial Conference: April 6, 2009 ) Trial Date: April 21, 2009 25 26 REDACTED PURSUANT TO INTERIM PROTECTIVE ORDER ENTERED 27 ON MAY 21, 2008-CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION OMITTED 28 UNREDACTED COPY FILED UNDER SEAL 1899242 Dockets.Justia.com 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 Page 3 I. INTRODUCTORY STATEMENTS ...............................................................2 4 A. UMG’s Introductory Statement .............................................................2 5 B. Veoh’s Introductory Statement ..............................................................4 6 II. EXPLANATION OF DOCUMENTS VEOH WILL PRODUCE – REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION NOS. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 7 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 8 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118 ............................................8 9 A. Example Verbatim Statement of Disputed Discovery and Response......8 10 B. UMG’s Contentions and Points of Authorities.....................................11 11 1. Veoh Refuses to Disclose the Employees Whose Files It will 12 search and the search terms it will employ.................................11 13 2. Veoh Has Not Produced Emails.................................................12 14 3. Veoh Should Be Ordered to Identify Document Custodians and Search Terms and Be Given a Deadline for Production.......13 15 C. Veoh’s Contentions and Points of Authorities .....................................14 16 1. UMG Is Not Entitled to the Details of Veoh's Collection and 17 Review Strategy ........................................................................15 18 2. Veoh Told UMG That It Was Waiting To Review Internal Email Until It Received A Response To Its June 14, 2008 19 Letter.........................................................................................17 20 III. VEOH’S REPEATED OBJECTIONS TO THE TERM “VEOH SOFTWARE”—REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION NOS. 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 21 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 35, 39, 42, 47, 50, 56, 57, 89, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 103, 22 104, iNTERROGATORIES NOS. 4, 6, 7 ......................................................18 23 A. Example Verbatim Statement of Disputed Discovery and Response....18 24 B. UMG’s Contentions and Points of Authorities.....................................21 25 1. Overview of Veoh .....................................................................21 26 2. Veoh’s Objections to the Term “Veoh Software” Lack Merit....23 27 C. Veoh’s Contentions and Points of Authorities .....................................24 28 IV. REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION NOS. 1, 9-11, 34, 36, 56-58— VEOH’S COPYRIGHT POLICIES AND PRACTICES ...............................25 1899242 - i - 1 Page 2 A. Verbatim Statement of Disputed Discovery and Response ..................25 3 B. UMG’s Contentions and Points of Authorities.....................................31 4 1. The DMCA Implicates Veoh’s Copyright Policies and Practices ....................................................................................32 5 2. The Federal Rules Broadly Define “Relevant” Documents........34 6 3. Documents and/or Communications Regarding Veoh’s 7 Copyright Policies and Practices Are Highly Relevant ..............34 8 4. Veoh’s Boilerplate Objections Cannot Support Its Refusals To Produce ................................................................................38 9 C. Veoh’s Contentions and Points of Authorities .....................................39 10 V. REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION NOS. 2-3—LITIGATION RELATED 11 DOCUMENTS ..............................................................................................41 12 A. Verbatim Statement of Disputed Discovery and Response ..................41 13 B. UMG’s Contentions and Points of Authorities.....................................42 14 1. Documents Regarding the Io Group Litigation Are Relevant to this Case ................................................................................43 15 2. Veoh Improperly Refuses To Produce Various Documents 16 Regarding The Io Group Lawsuit ..............................................44 17 C. Veoh’s Contentions and Points of Authorities .....................................45 18 VI. REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION NOS. 4, 6, 98-100, AND INTERROGATORY NO. 5—Video Files and Related Data.........................47 19 A. Verbatim Statement of Disputed Discovery and Response ..................47 20 B. UMG’s Contentions and Points of Authorities.....................................51 21 1. The Discovery Sought is Evidence of Veoh’s Infringement, 22 and Therefore Highly Relevant..................................................52 23 2. Veoh’s Proposed Production of a “Spreadsheet” with Links to Video Files is Insufficient and Improper Under Rule 34........53 24 3. Veoh’s Objection on the Grounds of Burden Lacks Merit 25 Given Veoh’s Superior Knowledge of the Video Files ..............55 26 C. Veoh’s Contentions and Points of Authorities .....................................58 27 1. The Spreadsheet Veoh Has Proposed Provides UMG With All of The Requested Data.........................................................58 28 1899242 - ii - 1 Page 2 2. The Cost and Expense of Having Veoh Copy All Video Files Ever Uploaded, In Addition to Providing UMG With 3 Access to All Files, Cannot Be Justified ....................................60 4 3. The Information Sought by UMG With Production Copies of All Video Files Can Be Obtained From Another Source 5 That Veoh Has Offered to Produce............................................62 6 4. If Veoh Is Required To Produce Individual Files, UMG Should Be Required To Pay The Costs......................................66 7 VII. REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION NOS. 7-8, 18-21, 35, 46, 91-92, and 8 interrogatories nos. 3 and 4—TECHNICAL DOCUMENTS.........................68 9 A. Verbatim Statement of Disputed Discovery and Response ..................68 10 B. UMG’s Contentions and Points of Authorities.....................................77 11 1. The Discovery Sought is Highly Relevant to Veoh’s Affirmative Defense Under the DMCA .....................................78 12 2. Despite the Relevance of This Discovery, Veoh Refuses to 13 Produce Responsive Documents................................................79 14 3. Veoh’s Unsupported Objections to Terms Used by UMG Lack Merit.................................................................................81 15 4. Veoh’s Response to Interrogatory No. 3 is Insufficient..............81 16 5. Veoh’s Response to Interrogatory No. 4 is Lacking...................82 17 C. Veoh’s Contentions and Points of Authorities .....................................84 18 VIII. REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION NOS. 12-17 AND 19 INTERROGATORY NO. 7—FILTERING AND MONITORING OF CONTENT ....................................................................................................86 20 A. Verbatim Statement of Disputed Discovery and Response ..................86 21 B. UMG’s Contentions and Points and Authorities ..................................91 22 1. Veoh’s Efforts to Screen or Remove Content is Relevant to 23 UMG’s Claims and Veoh’s DMCA Defense .............................92 24 2. Veoh’s Efforts to Screen and/or Remove Other Types of Content, Such as Pornography, Are Also Relevant ....................94 25 3. Veoh’s Additional Objections Regarding Interrogatory No. 7 26 Lack Merit.................................................................................95 27 C. Veoh’s Contentions and Points and Authorities...................................98 28 IX. REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION NOS. 22-33—FEATURES OF VEOH’S SITE...............................................................................................99 1899242 - iii - 1 Page 2 A. Verbatim Statement of Disputed Discovery and Response ..................99 3 B. UMG’s Contentions and Points of Authorities...................................108 4 1. These Features of Veoh’s Software are Relevant to Veoh’s Liability...................................................................................108 5 2. Veoh Has Refused to Produce Responsive Documents, or 6 Obscured What it Will Produce ...............................................110 7 C. Veoh’s Contentions and Points of Authorities