Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_00-md-01369/USCOURTS-cand-3_00-md-01369-16/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 

1182095. STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE CASE 

MANAGEMENT, C-MDL-00-1369 (MHP) 

..

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 CASE MANAGEMENT ISSUES 

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: 

UMG RECORDINGS, INC., et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

HUMMER WINBLAD VENTURE 

PARTNERS, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. C 04-1166 MHP 

UMG RECORDINGS, INC., et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

BERTELSMANN AG, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. C 04-1351 MHP 

Case 3:00-md-01369-MHP Document 923 Filed 05/10/06 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 

1182095. - 1 - STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE CASE 

MANAGEMENT, C-MDL-00-1369 (MHP)

..

LEIBER, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

BERTELSMANN AG, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. C 04-1671 MHP 

CAPITOL RECORDS, INC., et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

BERTELSMANN AG, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. C 04-2121 MHP 

WHEREAS, pursuant to the Court’s ruling at the March 31, 2006 hearing, the 

Phase I discovery cut-off (except for certain depositions that all parties consented to taking 

shortly thereafter) was set as April 30, 2006; and 

WHEREAS, Civil Local Rule 26-2 provides that, unless the Court orders 

otherwise, “no motions to compel discovery may be filed more than 7 court days after the 

discovery cut-off”; and 

WHEREAS, the parties are involved in ongoing meet and confer discussions 

regarding written discovery responses, as set forth below, and are attempting to resolve any 

remaining issues without the need for motions related to the same; and 

WHEREAS, Paragraph 2.b of the Court’s July 26, 2005 Order Regarding Case 

Management Issues, as modified by the revised Phase I discovery cut-off, provides that, by May 

10, 2006, all parties shall “file statements regarding expert proffers in accordance with the 

Court’s direction at the November 22, 2004 status conference”; and 

Case 3:00-md-01369-MHP Document 923 Filed 05/10/06 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 

1182095. - 2 - STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE CASE 

MANAGEMENT, C-MDL-00-1369 (MHP)

..

WHEREAS, the parties have agreed that the following modifications are in the 

parties’ joint interests and respectfully request that such changes be made to the case management 

schedule; 

NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES, THROUGH THEIR COUNSEL, 

HEREBY STIPULATE AND REQUEST THE COURT ENTER AS FOLLOWS: 

1. The Bertelsmann Defendants and Plaintiffs will continue to meet and 

confer regarding the deficiencies the propounding party has raised on or before May 9, 2006, to 

the responding party, either by email and/or letter, concerning the objections and/or responses 

served to the following discovery requests, and, failing resolution of those issues, any motions 

related to the same shall be filed on or before June 12, 2006: 

a. Bertelsmann’s first sets of requests for admission propounded on 

each of the UMG, EMI and Leiber Plaintiffs. 

b. Bertelsmann’s fourth sets of interrogatories propounded on each of 

the UMG and EMI Plaintiffs, and Bertelsmann’s third set of interrogatories propounded on the 

Leiber Plaintiffs. 

c. Bertelsmann’s fifth sets of interrogatories and fourth sets of 

document requests propounded on each of the UMG and EMI Plaintiffs; Bertelsmann’s fourth set 

of interrogatories and third set of document requests propounded on the Leiber Plaintiffs; and 

Bertelsmann’s second sets of requests for admission propounded on each of the UMG and EMI 

Plaintiffs. 

d. Plaintiffs’ second set of interrogatories propounded on 

Bertelsmann. 

e. Plaintiffs’ amended fifth and sixth sets of interrogatories 

propounded on Bertelsmann. 

2. The UMG and EMI Plaintiffs and the Hummer Winblad Defendants shall 

have until June 12, 2006, within which to conclude any meet and confer discussions and to file 

any motions related to the discovery requests they have served on each other. 

Case 3:00-md-01369-MHP Document 923 Filed 05/10/06 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 

1182095. - 3 - STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE CASE 

MANAGEMENT, C-MDL-00-1369 (MHP)

..

3. The parties shall continue to meet and confer about an appropriate schedule 

for expert proffers to replace the schedule set forth in the Court’s July 26, 2005 Order, and, given 

those discussions, the parties agree that such expert proffers should not be due on May 10, 2006. 

The parties agree that they shall, within thirty days of this stipulation shall, notify the Court of the 

status of those conferences and, if no agreeable date has yet been reached, request the Court set 

such a date. 

DATED: May 8, 2006 MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 

By: /s/ 

 KELLY M. KLAUS 

Attorneys for UMG Plaintiffs 

DATED: May 8, 2006 FRIED, FRANK, HARRIS, SHRIVER & 

JACOBSON LLP 

By: /s/ 

 PETER L. SIMMONS 

Attorneys for EMI Plaintiffs 

DATED: May 8, 2006 PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & 

GARRISON LLP 

By: /s/ 

 CAREY R. RAMOS 

Attorneys for LEIBER Plaintiffs 

DATED: May 8, 2006 KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP 

By: /s/ 

 MICHAEL H. PAGE 

Attorneys for HUMMER WINBLAD 

Defendants 

DATED: May 8, 2006 WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 

By: /s/ 

 R. BRUCE RICH 

Attorneys for BERTELSMANN Defendants 

ORDER 

 GOOD CAUSE APPEARING THEREFORE, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 __________________________________ 

 HON. MARILYN HALL PATEL 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

May 9, 2006

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Marilyn H. Patel

Case 3:00-md-01369-MHP Document 923 Filed 05/10/06 Page 4 of 4