Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_00-md-01369/USCOURTS-cand-3_00-md-01369-11/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE NAPSTER, INC. COPYRIGHT 

LITIGATION

 

This Document Relates To:

 

UMG RECORDINGS, INC. et al., 

Plaintiffs,

v.

HUMMER WINBLAD VENTURE PARTNERS et al.,

Defendants. 

UMG RECORDINGS, INC. et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v.

BERTELSMANN AG et. al.,

Defendants. 

JERRY LEIBER et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BERTELSMANN AG et al., 

Defendants. 

No. C MDL-00-1369 MHP

No. C 04-1166 MHP

No. C 04-1351 MHP

No. C 04-1671 MHP

Case 3:00-md-01369-MHP Document 793 Filed 02/15/06 Page 1 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 

CAPITOL RECORDS, INC. et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BERTELSMANN AG et. al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 04-2121 MHP

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

Re: Motions to Compel

The above-captioned actions arise from litigation involving alleged copyright infringement

by Napster, Inc. and its customers. Now before the court are three motions to compel deposition

testimony and production of documents from third parties Napster, L.L.C. f/k/a pressplay, MusicNet,

Inc., and iMesh, Inc. (the “third parties”), filed by Hummer Winblad (“defendant”).1 Having

considered the parties’ arguments and submissions, and for the reasons set forth below, the court

enters the following memorandum and order.

BACKGROUND

The instant motions relate to four actions now pending before this court as part of the In re

Napster Copyright Litigation multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) proceedings, Case No.

C MDL-00-1369 MHP. Plaintiffs in this suit allege that by investing in Napster and assuming

control of the operation of the Napster file-sharing network, defendants contributorily and

vicariously infringed plaintiffs’ exclusive rights under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. section 101. 

See 17 U.S.C. § 106. Defendant has asserted various counterclaims and affirmative defenses,

including antitrust violations, copyright misuse, and unclean hands. In conducting discovery related

to these counterclaims and affirmative defenses, defendant wishes to obtain information from two

joint ventures—MusicNet and pressplay—which were allegedly created by the record label plaintiffs

Case 3:00-md-01369-MHP Document 793 Filed 02/15/06 Page 2 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

in order to gain control over the market for online music distribution, and an online music

distribution service—iMesh—which was the target of a lawsuit filed by the record label plaintiffs in

2003.

In order to obtain discovery from the third parties, defendant served them with subpoenas

seeking deposition testimony and relevant documents. The MusicNet and iMesh subpoenas issued

from the Southern District of New York, and the pressplay subpoena issued from the Central District

of California. None of the third parties has provided the requested deposition testimony or

documents, and defendant now moves this court to compel compliance with the subpoenas.

The challenges to the substance of the discovery requests were addressed at oral argument

and are the subject of separate orders issued by the court. In addition to the substantive challenges,

the third parties assert that this court, the MDL transferee, lacks jurisdiction to enforce the

subpoenas.

DISCUSSION

The third parties argue that this court may not enforce subpoenas issued in other districts

unless defendant first brings motions to compel in the other districts and requests that they be

transferred to this court. In support of their argument, the third parties cite Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure 45(c) and 37(a)(1), which govern discovery disputes in general, and 28 U.S.C. section

1407(c), which governs the transfer of “action[s]” to the MDL docket. Defendant counters that the

MDL statute, 28 U.S.C. section 1407(b), expressly grants the MDL transferee judge the power to

compel pretrial deposition testimony in other judicial districts, as well as the production of

documents related to those depositions.

The third parties’ arguments are without merit. Section 1407(b) provides that the MDL

transferee judge “may exercise the powers of a district judge in any district for the purpose of

conducting pretrial depositions.” 28 U.S.C. § 1407(b). Courts considering the question have

uniformly held that the MDL judge may enforce a deposition subpoena issued in another district,

including a subpoena duces tecum. See, e.g., In re Factor VIII or IX Concentrate Blood Prods.

Litig., 174 F.R.D. 412, 415 (N.D. Ill. 1997) (“It would make no sense for [section] 1407(b) to confer

Case 3:00-md-01369-MHP Document 793 Filed 02/15/06 Page 3 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 4

authority to conduct depositions but not the authority to require production of documents at a

deposition”); HCA, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Pogue, No. 3:02-MC-0047, 2002 WL 31953748, at

*3 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 21, 2002).

None of the cases cited by the third parties contemplates a requirement that motions to

compel be filed in the district where the subpoena issued and then transferred to the MDL judge. In

In the Matter of Orthopedic Bone Screw Products Liability Litigation, 79 F.3d 46 (7th Cir. 1996),

the MDL proceeding was in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and the third parties were located

in Wisconsin. Id. at 47–48. When the plaintiffs in the MDL proceeding sought to take the

depositions of the third parties, each third party applied for a protective order in the Wisconsin

courts. Id. Each Wisconsin judge “transferred” the protective order motion to the Eastern District of

Pennsylvania. Id. at 48. The Seventh Circuit held that the so-called “transfer” motions were “an

error of nomenclature,”2 and noted that “[t]he Eastern District of Pennsylvania is authorized to act

on the motions for protective orders.” Id.

In In re Uranium Antitrust Litigation, 503 F. Supp. 33 (N.D. Ill. 1980), the MDL judge found

that he had the authority to hear third-party discovery disputes filed in other districts, but concluded

that he was required to travel to the remote district in order to exercise that authority. With respect

to this last requirement, subsequent decisions have uniformly rejected the requirement that the MDL

judge travel. See In re Welding Rod Prods. Liab. Litig., --- F. Supp. 2d ---, No. C 05-80234MISC

JW, 2005 WL 3525726, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2005) (Lloyd, Mag. J.) (“decisions issued after the

Uranium Antitrust opinion . . . conclude the MDL-transferee judge need not be physically present in

the subpoena-issuing district in order to exercise powers as a judge sitting in that district”); United

States ex rel. Pogue v. Diabetes Treatment Ctrs. of Am., Inc., 238 F. Supp. 2d 270, 274 n.2 (D.D.C.

2002) (“We do not find that [section] 1407 requires the Court to become a peripatetic dispenser of

justice”); In re Factor VIII or IX Concentrate Blood Prods. Litig., 174 F.R.D. at 415 (“Requiring a

transferee judge to travel from district to district to hold hearings and rule on discovery matters

would hardly be an efficient way of managing consolidated pretrial proceedings”). In any case,

nothing in Uranium Antitrust suggests that the parties were required to file the motions to compel in

the districts where the disputes arose.

Case 3:00-md-01369-MHP Document 793 Filed 02/15/06 Page 4 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 5

Finally, in In re Welding Rod Products Liability Litigation, Magistrate Judge Lloyd in this

district held that the MDL judge in the Northern District of Ohio had the authority to rule on

discovery disputes, and agreed to “refer” the dispute to the MDL judge. 2005 WL 3525726, at *3. 

Judge Lloyd did not discuss or consider whether the discovery disputes could have been brought in

Ohio in the first instance. Nor did he find that a formal “transfer” procedure was required.

In all of the cited cases, although the discovery motions happened to be filed first in the

districts where the third parties were located, nothing about the courts’ holdings or reasoning

suggests that they were required to be so filed. In addition, none of the cited cases contemplates, as

the third parties argue, that the transfer must first be reviewed by the MDL panel.

Finally, with respect to the third parties’ arguments that Rules 45 and 37 deprive this court of

jurisdiction to hear the discovery disputes at issue, the Northern District of Illinois noted the uniform

rejection of this argument in In re Factor VIII or IX Concentrate Blood Products Litigation. See 174

F.R.D. at 413–15 (collecting cases); id. at 415 (“[i]n light of these authorities, it is clear that 28

U.S.C. [section] 1407(b) gives this court the authority to rule, as transferee judge, on the motion to

compel compliance with the subpoena issued in the District of Connecticut”). In sum, this court

may adjudicate defendant’s motions to compel.

CONCLUSION

For the above reasons the court concludes that it has jurisdiction to consider defendant’s

motions to compel. The rulings on those motions are set forth in separate orders.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date:February 15, 2006 ________________________

MARILYN HALL PATEL

United States District Judge

Northern District of California

Case 3:00-md-01369-MHP Document 793 Filed 02/15/06 Page 5 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 6

1. This order considers the three motions to compel jointly because they involve the same

jurisdictional question.

2. The court notes, in agreement with the Seventh Circuit, that on its face section 1407(c) does not

apply to transfer of “motions.” Rather, section 1407(c) sets forth “[p]roceedings for the transfer of

an action under this section” (emphasis added).

 ENDNOTES

Case 3:00-md-01369-MHP Document 793 Filed 02/15/06 Page 6 of 6