Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_00-md-01369/USCOURTS-cand-3_00-md-01369-25/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 REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MTC DEPOSITION TESTIMONY 

AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM NAPSTER LLC RELATED TO THE APRIL 21, 2006 CRIMEFRAUD ORDER 

No. C MDL-00-1369 (MHP) 

19664\964923.1 374257.01 

KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP 

JOHN W. KEKER - #49092 

MICHAEL H. PAGE - #154913 

RAGESH K. TANGRI - #159477 

710 Sansome Street 

San Francisco, CA 94111-1704 

Telephone: (415) 391-5400 

Facsimile: (415) 397-7188 

jwk@kvn.com 

mhp@kvn.com 

rkt@kvn.com 

Attorneys for Defendants 

HUMMER WINBLAD VENTURE PARTNERS IV, L.P.; 

HUMMER WINBLAD TECHNOLOGY FUND IV, L.P.; 

HUMMER WINBLAD EQUITY PARTNERS IV L.L.C.; HANK 

BARRY; and JOHN HUMMER 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

IN RE NAPSTER, INC. 

COPYRIGHT LITIGATION 

UMG RECORDINGS, INC., et al. 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

HUMMER WINBLAD VENTURE 

PARTNERS, et al., 

Defendants. 

 

No. C MDL-00-1369 (MHP) 

(No. C 04-1166 (MHP)) 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION 

TESTIMONY AND PRODUCTION OF 

DOCUMENTS FROM NAPSTER, LLC 

RELATED TO THE APRIL 21, 2006 

CRIME-FRAUD ORDER 

Date: July 17, 2006 

Time: 2 p.m. 

Dept: 15 

Judge: Hon. Marilyn Hall Patel 

Case 3:00-md-01369-MHP Document 1034 Filed 07/28/06 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 REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MTC DEPOSITION TESTIMONY 

AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM NAPSTER LLC RELATED TO THE APRIL 21, 2006 CRIMEFRAUD ORDER 

No. C MDL-00-1369 (MHP) 

19664\964923.1 374257.01 

WHEREAS certain multidistrict litigation is pending before the Honorable Marilyn Hall 

Patel in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California entitled In Re 

Napster, Inc. Copyright Litigation, C-MDL-00-1369 (MHP) (the “Napster Litigation”); 

WHEREAS, in that litigation, Plaintiffs UMG and EMI have sued the Hummer Winblad 

Defendants (collectively Hummer Winblad Venture Partners IV L.P., Hummer Winblad Equity 

Partners IV L.L.C., Hummer Winblad Technology Fund IV L.P., John Hummer and Hank Barry) 

for copyright claims, and certain of the Hummer Winblad Defendants have countersued the 

Plaintiffs for antitrust violations; 

WHEREAS on April 21, 2006, Judge Patel granted the motion by the Hummer Winblad 

Defendants to compel UMG’s and EMI’s production of certain documents, formerly withheld as 

privileged, on the basis of the crime-fraud exception. See, Memorandum and Order re: Motion 

to Compel Production of Privileged Documents at 10 (filed April 21, 2006) (the “April 21 

Order”); 

WHEREAS on May 2, 2006, the Hummer Winblad Defendants served a subpoena for 

testimony and documents upon Napster LLC (“Napster”) f/k/a/ pressplay, seeking discovery 

regarding “all previously withheld communications related to the DOJ investigation, including 

but not limited to the following: (1) internal investigations of the relationship between the labels 

and the joint ventures, including the disclosure of competitively sensitive information; (2) 

communications made in the course of preparing the White Papers; and (3) other 

communications concerning what information and documents should be produced to the DOJ.” 

April 21 Order at 12. The Hummer Winblad Defendants contend, but Napster LLC disputes, that 

Napster LLC must comply with the subpoena because its precursor pressplay is a signatory to the 

White Paper that forms the basis of the April 21 Order, and therefore also subject to the crimefraud exception; 

Case 3:00-md-01369-MHP Document 1034 Filed 07/28/06 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 REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MTC DEPOSITION TESTIMONY 

AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM NAPSTER LLC RELATED TO THE APRIL 21, 2006 CRIMEFRAUD ORDER 

No. C MDL-00-1369 (MHP) 

19664\964923.1 374257.01 

WHEREAS Plaintiffs EMI and UMG have sought appellate review by the Ninth Circuit 

of the April 21 Order; 

WHEREAS the Ninth Circuit has stayed the April 21 Order pending its review of that 

order; and 

WHEREAS on May 17, 2006, the Hummer Winblad Defendants filed in the Northern 

District of California a motion to compel compliance with the subpoena issued to Napster LLC. 

Accordingly, counsel for the Hummer Winblad Defendants and Napster LLC have agreed 

and hereby stipulate as set forth below: 

1. The pending Motion to Compel will be taken off calendar and held in abeyance 

without prejudice to any party until the Ninth Circuit issues a decision on Plaintiffs’ now 

pending appeals of the April 21 Order. 

2. The Hummer Winblad Defendants may re-notice the Motion to Compel after the 

Ninth Circuit resolves the Plaintiffs’ pending appeals of the April 21 Order. The undersigned 

parties agree to meet and confer about such a hearing date, and that the notice period for the 

Motion to Compel will not be on shortened time. 

3. By entering this stipulation, the undersigned parties do not waive any arguments 

regarding the validity or enforceability of the subpoena. However, the undersigned parties do 

agree that the delay in the hearing date of the Motions to Compel resulting from the terms of this 

stipulation is not a ground for quashing the subpoena. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

Case 3:00-md-01369-MHP Document 1034 Filed 07/28/06 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 REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MTC DEPOSITION TESTIMONY 

AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM NAPSTER LLC RELATED TO THE APRIL 21, 2006 CRIMEFRAUD ORDER 

No. C MDL-00-1369 (MHP) 

19664\964923.1 374257.01 

Dated: June 2, 2006 KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP 

By: /s/ Paula L. Blizzard __________________

PAULA L. BLIZZARD 

Attorneys for Defendants 

HUMMER WINBLAD VENTURE 

PARTNERS IV, L.P.; HUMMER 

WINBLAD TECHNOLOGY FUND IV, 

L.P.; HUMMER WINBLAD EQUITY 

PARTNERS IV LLC; HANK BARRY; 

and JOHN HUMMER 

 

Dated: June 2, 2006 FARELLA, BRAUN + MARTEL, LLP 

By: /s/ James W. Morando________________

JAMES W. MORANDO 

Attorneys for NAPSTER LLC 

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, IT IS SO ORDERED, 

___________________________________________ ______________ 

HONORABLE MARILYN H. PATEL DATE 

July 27, 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 1034 Filed 07/28/06 Page 4 of 4