Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_00-md-01369/USCOURTS-cand-3_00-md-01369-41/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

TN RE NAPSTER, INC. COPYRIGHT 

LITIGATION I CASE NO. C-MDL-00- 1 369 MHP 

1 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER REGARDING CASE 1 MANAGEMENT ISSUES 

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: 

LEIBER et al., 

Plaintiffs;, 

V. 

BERTELSMANN AG et al., 

Defendants. 

NO. C 04-1671 MHP 

CAPITOL RECORDS, lhTC, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

BERTELSMAN AG et a]., 

Defe~~dants. 

STIPULATION AND [PKOPOSED] ORDER W: CASE 

MANAGEMENT ISSUES, C-MDLb- IjbQ (MHP) 

Case 3:00-md-01369-MHP Document 1261 Filed 03/20/07 Page 1 of 3
Phase 11 and Expert Discovery 

On July 26,2005, the Court entered an order in accordance with the parties' 

stipulation setting the schedule for deferred discovery and expert discovery. The parties have 

attempted to abide by that schedule, but in view of intervening events (including the delay of 

sumn~ary judgment motions from Phase I of the case) and the parties' ongoing efforts to respond 

to one another's Phase I1 discovery requests, the parties have met and conferred and have agreed 

that, subject to the Court's approval, the schedule for deferred discovery and expert discovery 

should be extended by approximately 90 days, as follows: 

1. The cutoff for deferred discovery shall be June 1, 2007; 

2. Expert I-epo~ts on any subject for ~vtlidl a party has the burden of proof 

shall be served not later than July 2,2007; 

3. Rebuttal expert reports shall be served not Iater than July 30,2007; 

4. The cutoff for expert discovery shall be August 31,2007; 

5. The last day to file dispositjve motions based upon deferred discovery shall 

be September 17,2007. 

Hearing on Bertelsmann's Motion to Compel 

On February 13, 2007, the Bertelsmann defendants filed a Motion to Compel 

Further Responses to Interrogatories, and noticed the hearing on for the Court's normal law and 

 notions calendar for March 26, 2007 at 2:00 p.m. Because the parties are already scheduled to 

appear before the Court later that same week, on Marc11 29, 2007, in connection witti the parties' 

cross motions for summary judgment, the parties believe it would be more efficient for both 

hearings to be held on the same day rather than having two hearings on the same case in a single 

week. 

Accordingly, subject to the Court's convenience, the parties agree that the hearing 

on Bertelsmann' s rnotju~~ to compel [D.I. 1 2491 should be rescheduled fur Marc11 29,2007, at 

2:00 p.m., in conjunction with the hearing on the cross motions for summary judgment [see D.I. 

1 2441. 

STLPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ClRDER RE: CASE 

MANAGEMENT ISSUES, C-MDLO-I369 (MHP) 

Case 3:00-md-01369-MHP Document 1261 Filed 03/20/07 Page 2 of 3
DATED: February 26,2007 

DATED: February 26,2007 

DATED: Febniary 26,2007 

Is/ Carey R. Ramos 

Carey R. Ramos (pro hac vice) 

PAUL,CVEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & 

GARRISON LLP 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Leiber et. al. 

&Peter L. Simmons 

Peter L. Simmons fin-u ~CIC vice) 

FRIED. FRANK, HARRIS, SHRIVER & 

JACOBSON LLP 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Capitol Records, Inc. et, al. 

&/ R. Bruce Rich 

R. Bruce Rich (pro hat vice) 

WELL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 

Attorneys for Defer~dants Bertelsmann AG, 

Bertelsmann, Inc, and BeMusic, Inc. 

ORDER 

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING THEREFORE, IT IS SO ORDERED, 

HON. MARIL* HALL P.4TEL 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

STIPULATlON .4ND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE CASE 

M AXAGEMENT ISSUES, C-MDL-0- 1369 (MHP) 

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Marilyn H. Patel

March 16, 2007

Case 3:00-md-01369-MHP Document 1261 Filed 03/20/07 Page 3 of 3