Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_00-md-01369/USCOURTS-cand-3_00-md-01369-39/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 28:1338 Copyright Infringement

---

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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

CASE NO. C-MDL-00-1369 MHP 

385681.01 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

IN RE NAPSTER, INC. COPYRIGHT 

LITIGATION 

CASE NO. C-MDL-00-1369 MHP 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

REGARDING SCHEDULING ISSUES IN 

LIGHT OF CONDITIONAL SETTLEMENT 

AMONG UMG, EMI AND HUMMER 

WINBLAD PARTIES 

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: 

UMG RECORDINGS, INC., et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

HUMMER WINBLAD VENTURE 

PARTNERS, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. C 04-1166 MHP 

Case 3:00-md-01369-MHP Document 1235 Filed 12/13/06 Page 1 of 4
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

1 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

CASE NO. C-MDL-00-1369 MHP 

385681.01 

WHEREAS, on April 21, 2006, this Court entered an order granting the Hummer 

Winblad Defendants’ motion to compel production of privileged documents from the UMG and 

EMI Plaintiffs pursuant to the crime-fraud exception (the “April 21 Order”); 

WHEREAS the UMG and EMI Plaintiffs have filed appeals and petitions for 

writs of mandamus in regard to the April 21 Order, which appeals and petitions are now pending 

in the Ninth Circuit. Those appeals and petitions bear the following Ninth Circuit case numbers: 

06-15895 (UMG Appeal), 06-15896 (EMI Appeal), 06-72571 (UMG Writ Petition), and 06-

72789 (EMI Writ Petition) (collectively, the “Ninth Circuit UMG and EMI Proceedings”); 

WHEREAS, on November 29, 2006, the UMG Plaintiffs, the EMI Plaintiffs, and 

the Hummer Winblad Defendants entered into a Conditional Settlement Agreement and Release 

(“Conditional Settlement Agreement”) which provides, inter alia, that the parties will enter into 

a stipulated dismissal with prejudice when a court of competent jurisdiction has issued a final, 

non-appealable order that: (1) vacates or reverses the April 21 Order, and (2) eliminates to each 

of the undersigned parties’ reasonable satisfaction any preclusive effect of that April 21, 2006 

Order in any other proceeding (the “Condition”); 

WHEREAS, on December 5, 2006, the parties to the Conditional Settlement 

Agreement jointly moved the Ninth Circuit to grant a limited remand of the Ninth Circuit UMG 

and EMI Proceedings to allow this Court to make the equitable determination of whether to 

vacate the April 21 Order so as to satisfy the Condition; 

WHEREAS the parties to the Conditional Settlement Agreement wish to adjust 

the schedule of the case to allow time to seek said relief from the Ninth Circuit and this Court. 

NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES STIPULATE AS FOLLOWS, SUBJECT 

TO THE COURT’S APPROVAL: 

1. All of the following are stayed and/or taken off the Court’s current 

calendar: 

Case 3:00-md-01369-MHP Document 1235 Filed 12/13/06 Page 2 of 4
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

2 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

CASE NO. C-MDL-00-1369 MHP 

385681.01 

(a) The Hummer Winblad Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, now 

on calendar for December 13, 2006 (provided, however, that this stay does not affect the 

Bertelsmann Defendants’ motion and conditional motion for summary judgment, which remains 

on calendar for December 13, 2006, or the UMG Plaintiffs’ ability to be heard on their separate 

statements regarding the Bertelsmann motions); 

(b) The Hummer Winblad Defendants’ motion to compel depositions of 

Messrs. Stringer and Wiesenthal, also now on calendar for December 13, 2006; 

(c) The Hummer Winblad Defendants’ motion to compel further discovery 

from Apple, now the subject of briefing and submission without oral argument; 

(d) All proceedings relating to the UMG and EMI Plaintiffs’ Applications for 

Costs and Fees, filed November 22, 2006, including the Hummer Winblad Defendants’ 

obligation to file a response to those Applications; and 

(e) Phase II discovery, as between the UMG and EMI Plaintiffs, on the one 

hand, and the Hummer Winblad Defendants, on the other. 

2. The foregoing stays shall be lifted, and the foregoing proceedings recalendared and/or permitted to move forward, if (a) the Ninth Circuit denies the UMG-EMIHummer Winblad joint motion for limited remand, or (b) the Ninth Circuit, after granting the 

UMG-EMI-Hummer Winblad joint motion for limited remand, thereafter resumes jurisdiction 

over the Ninth Circuit UMG and EMI Proceedings, or (c) in connection with one of the 

foregoing reasons or otherwise, the Condition is not satisfied. If the Condition is satisfied, the 

UMG Plaintiffs, EMI Plaintiffs and Hummer Winblad Defendants will enter into a stipulated 

dismissal with prejudice and the matters stayed pursuant to this Stipulation and Order will be 

moot. 

3. The parties will consult with their respective Japanese counsel about an 

appropriate means to request that the Japanese Court, pending satisfaction or non-satisfaction of 

the Condition, defer further proceedings on the letter rogatory issued by this Court to obtain the 

testimony of Nobuyuki Idei. The parties will report to this Court (and submit for this Court’s 

Case 3:00-md-01369-MHP Document 1235 Filed 12/13/06 Page 3 of 4
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

3 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

CASE NO. C-MDL-00-1369 MHP 

385681.01 

consideration any appropriate supplemental order requesting such deferral from the Japanese 

Court) promptly. 

DATED: December 6, 2006 MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 

By: /s/ 

 GLENN D. POMERANTZ 

Attorneys for UMG Plaintiffs 

DATED: December 6, 2006 FRIED, FRANK, HARRIS, SHRIVER & 

JACOBSON LLP 

By: /s/ 

 PETER L. SIMMONS 

Attorneys for EMI Plaintiffs 

DATED: December 6, 2006 KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP 

By: /s/ 

 MICHAEL H. PAGE 

Attorneys for HUMMER WINBLAD 

Defendants 

ORDER 

 GOOD CAUSE APPEARING THEREFORE, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 __________________________________

 HON. MARILYN HALL PATEL 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: 12/8/06

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Judge Marilyn H. Patel

Case 3:00-md-01369-MHP Document 1235 Filed 12/13/06 Page 4 of 4