Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_00-md-01369/USCOURTS-cand-3_00-md-01369-35/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

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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 1201 Filed 11/07/06 Page 1 of 2
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

ORDER

On October 31, 2006, the EMI and Lieber plaintiffs filed their Reply Brief in Support of

Conditional Motion for Continuance of Bertelsmann’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The reply

brief contains excerpts from oral arguments before the Ninth Circuit related to an appeal pending in

this matter, as well as arguments based on these excerpts. A 54-page transcript of the Ninth Circuit

proceedings is also attached to the reply brief as an exhibit. On November 2, 2006, counsel for

Bertelsmann contacted the court requesting leave to file a letter responding to the arguments in the

reply brief related to the Ninth Circuit proceedings.

The court will not consider any arguments from any party in this matter related to the oral

arguments before the Ninth Circuit. Those portions of the reply brief that excerpt and/or refer to the

Ninth Circuit oral arguments are stricken. The exhibit to the reply brief is stricken. Bertelsmann’s

request to file a letter in response to the reply brief is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 6, 2006 

MARILYN HALL PATEL

District Judge

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Case 3:00-md-01369-MHP Document 1201 Filed 11/07/06 Page 2 of 2