Disney Enterprises, Inc., et al v. VidAngel, Inc.

Filing 24

Submitted (ECF) excerpts of record. Submitted by Appellant VidAngel, Inc.. Date of service: 01/11/2017. [10263145] [16-56843] (Stris, Peter) [Entered: 01/11/2017 09:33 PM]

No. 16-56843
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VIDANGEL, INC.,
Defendant-Appellant,
v.
DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC.; LUCASFILM LTD. LLC;
TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATION; AND
WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT, INC.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees.
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Hon. André Birotte Jr.
No. 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA
EXCERPTS OF RECORD
VOLUME IV OF V
(Pages 568-660)
Brendan S. Maher
Daniel L. Geyser
Douglas D. Geyser
STRIS & MAHER LLP
6688 N. Central Expy., Ste. 1650
Dallas, TX 75206
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
January 11, 2016

Peter K. Stris
Elizabeth Rogers Brannen
Dana Berkowitz
Victor O’Connell
STRIS & MAHER LLP
725 S. Figueroa St., Ste. 1830
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]

Counsel for Defendant-Appellant VidAngel, Inc.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME I OF V
Pages 1 to 22

ECF Description
144

Page

Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction

ER001

VOLUME II OF V
Pages 23 to 289

ECF Description

Page

175

[In Chambers] Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application
for an Order to Show Cause Why VidAngel Should Not Be Held
in Contempt

ER023

172

Ninth Circuit Order Denying VidAngel, Inc.’s Emergency Motion
for a Stay Pending Appeal

ER024

167

Declaration of David Quinto

ER026

166

[In Chambers] Order Denying Defendant’s Ex Parte Application
to Stay Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal or Alternatively,
Pending Decision by the Ninth Circuit on Stay Pending Appeal

ER029

164

VidAngel, Inc.’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application
for an Order to Show Cause

ER034

164-1

Declaration of Neal Harmon in Support of VidAngel,
Inc.’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application for
an Order to Show Cause

ER050

164-2

Declaration of David Quinto in Support of VidAngel,
Inc.’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application for
an Order to Show Cause

ER060

164-3

Declaration of Jarom McDonald in Support of
VidAngel, Inc.’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte
Application for an Order to Show Cause

ER070

ECF Description

Page

163

Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Injunction Bond

ER075

158

Declaration of Neal Harmon in Support of VidAngel, Inc.’s Ex
Parte Application to Stay Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal
or, Alternatively Pending Decision by the Ninth Circuit on Stay
Pending Appeal

ER080

149

VidAngel, Inc.’s Notice of Appeal from Order Granting Motion
for Preliminary Injunction; Representation Statement

ER088

145

Court Reporter’s Transcript of Proceedings on Monday,
November 14, 2016

ER094

123

Order Regarding Hearing Date on Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Preliminary Injunction

ER218

110

Supplemental Declaration of Neal Harmon in Opposition to
Motion for Entry of Preliminary Injunction (with Exhibits)

ER220

109

Declaration of William J. Aho in Support of VidAngel, Inc.’s
Opposition to Motion for Entry of Preliminary Injunction

ER283

78

Order Continuing Hearing of Plaintiffs’ Motions for Preliminary
Injunction and to Dismiss VidAngel’s Countercomplaint

ER288

VOLUME III OF V
Pages 290 to 567

ECF Description

Page

77

Amended Answer and First Amended Counterclaims

ER290

69

Declaration of Tim Wildmon in Support of VidAngel’s
Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction

ER350

68

Declaration of Tim Barton in Support of VidAngel’s Opposition
to Motion for Preliminary Injunction

ER354

ECF Description

Page

67

Declaration of Theodore Baehr in Support of VidAngel’s
Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction

ER358

66

Declaration of Rick Green in Support of VidAngel’s Opposition
to Motion for Preliminary Injunction

ER362

65

Declaration of Rebecca Hagelin in Support of VidAngel’s
Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction

ER366

64

Declaration of Patrick Trueman in Support of VidAngel’s
Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction

ER371

63

Declaration of Matt Kibbe in Support of VidAngel’s Opposition
to Motion for Preliminary Injunction

ER375

62

Declaration of L. Brent Bozell III in Support of VidAngel’s
Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction

ER378

61

Declaration of George E. Roller in Support of VidAngel’s
Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction

ER383

60

Declaration of Gary Marx in Support of VidAngel’s Opposition
to Motion for Preliminary Injunction

ER387

59

Declaration of Gary Bauer in Support of VidAngel’s Opposition
to Motion for Preliminary Injunction

ER391

58

Declaration of David Bozell in Support of VidAngel’s
Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction

ER395

57

Declaration of David Barton in Support of VidAngel’s
Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction

ER399

56

Declaration of Connor Boyack in Support of VidAngel’s
Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction

ER403

55

Declaration of Harry R. Jackson Jr. in Support of VidAngel’s
Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction

ER407

54

Declaration of Timothy F. Winter in Support of VidAngel’s
Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction

ER411

ECF Description

Page

53

Declaration of Donna Rice Hughes in Support of VidAngel’s
Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction

ER419

52

Declaration of Bryan and Diane Schwartz in Support of
VidAngel’s Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction

ER428

51

Declaration of Bob Waliszewski in Support of VidAngel’s
Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction

ER433

50

Declaration of Andrea Lafferty in Support of VidAngel’s
Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction

ER436

46

Declaration of David W. Quinto in Support of VidAngel’s
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to
Preliminary Injunction Motion

ER441

45

Declaration of Jaime W. Marquart in Support of VidAngel’s
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to
Preliminary Injunction Motion

ER451

45-2

[Redacted] Exhibit B to Declaration of Jaime W.
Marquart in Support of VidAngel’s Memorandum of
Points and Authorities in Opposition to Preliminary
Injunction Motion

ER455

45-4

[Redacted] Exhibit D to Declaration of Jaime W.
Marquart in Support of VidAngel’s Memorandum of
Points and Authorities in Opposition to Preliminary
Injunction Motion

ER469

44

[Redacted] Declaration of Sigurd Meldal in Support of
VidAngel’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in
Opposition to Preliminary Injunction Motion

ER470

44-4

ER514

Exhibit D to Declaration of Sigurd Meldal in Support
of VidAngel’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities
In Opposition to Preliminary Injunction Motion

ECF Description

Page

43

[Redacted] Declaration of Neal Harmon in Support of
VidAngel’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities In
Opposition to Preliminary Injunction Motion

ER520

43-1

Exhibit A to Declaration of Neal Harmon in Support of
VidAngel’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities In
Opposition to Preliminary Injunction Motion

ER545

43-2

Exhibit B to Declaration of Neal Harmon in Support of
VidAngel’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities In
Opposition to Preliminary Injunction Motion

ER547

43-3

Exhibit C to Declaration of Neal Harmon in Support of
VidAngel’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities In
Opposition to Preliminary Injunction Motion

ER551

28

Declaration of Tedd Cittadine in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion
for Preliminary Injunction

ER554

VOLUME IV OF V
Pages 568 to 660

ECF Description

Page

27

[Redacted] Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion and Motion for
Preliminary Injunction; Memorandum of Points and Authorities
in Support Thereof

ER568

1

Complaint for Copyright Infringement and Violation of Digital
Millennium Copyright Act

ER613

[1/11/2017] Docket Sheet

ER633

VOLUME V OF V
(FILED UNDER SEAL)
Pages 661 to 848

ECF Description

Page

80-1 Declaration of Neal Harmon in Support of VidAngel’s
Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Opposition to
Preliminary Injunction Motion

ER661

80-2 Declaration of Sigurd Meldal in Support of VidAngel’s
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to
Preliminary Injunction Motion

ER686

80-3 Exhibit B to Declaration of Jaime W. Marquart in Support of
VidAngel’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition
to Preliminary Injunction Motion

ER709

80-4 Exhibit D to Declaration of Jaime W. Marquart in Support of
VidAngel’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition
to Preliminary Injunction Motion

ER723

33

Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion and Motion for Preliminary
Injunction; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support
Thereof

ER804

Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 27 Filed 08/22/16 Page 1 of 45 Page ID #:583

1 GLENN D. POMERANTZ (SBN 112503)
[e-mail]
2 KELLY M. KLAUS (SBN 161091)
[e-mail]
3 ROSE LEDA EHLER (SBN 296523)
[e-mail]
4 ALLYSON R. BENNETT (SBN 302090)
[e-mail]
5 MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
355 South Grand Avenue, Thirty-Fifth Floor
6 Los Angeles, California 90071-1560
Telephone: [phone]
7 Facsimile: [phone]
8 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

WESTERN DIVISION

12 DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC.;
LUCASFILM LTD. LLC;
13 TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM
CORPORATION and WARNER
14 BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC.,
Plaintiffs and Counterclaim
Defendants,

15
16
17

vs.
VIDANGEL, INC.,

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Defendant and CounterClaimant.

Case No. 16-cv-04109-AB (PLAx)
REDACTED VERSION OF
DOCUMENT PROPOSED TO BE
FILED UNDER SEAL
PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF
MOTION AND MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION;
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
THEREOF
Judge: Hon. André Birotte Jr.
Date: October 24, 2016
Time: 10:00 a.m.
Crtrm.: 4
Filed concurrently herewith:
(1) Declaration of Tedd Cittadine
(2) Declaration of Rose Leda Ehler
(3) Declaration of Kelly M. Klaus
(4) Declaration of Robert Schumann
(5) [Proposed] Order
(6) Application to File Under Seal
Trial Date:

None Set

26
27
28

ER568

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
16-CV-04109-AB (PLAX)

Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 27 Filed 08/22/16 Page 2 of 45 Page ID #:584

1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
2

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on October 24, 2016, at 10:00 a.m., before the

3 Honorable André Birotte Jr., in Courtroom 4 of the United States District Court for
4 the Central District of California, located at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles,
5 California 90012, Plaintiffs Disney Enterprises, Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC, Twentieth
6 Century Fox Film Corporation, and Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. (collectively,
7 “Plaintiffs”) will and hereby do move for a Preliminary Injunction restraining
8 Defendant VidAngel, Inc. (“VidAngel”) and all of its officers, agents, servants,
9 employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation or
10 privity with any of them, from: [1] violating Plaintiffs’ rights pursuant to § 1201(a) of
11 the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a), by
12 circumventing technological measures that effectively control access to Plaintiffs’
13 copyrighted works on DVDs and Blu-ray discs; and [2] infringing by any means,
14 directly or indirectly, Plaintiffs’ exclusive rights under § 106 of the Copyright Act,
15 id. § 106, including by reproducing or publicly performing Plaintiffs’ copyrighted
16 works.
17

This Motion is made on the following grounds as explained in the

18 accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities and supporting papers:
19

1.

Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits because the record

20 evidence clearly shows that VidAngel: (a) uses “ripping” software to circumvent
21 technological protection measures on DVDs and Blu-ray discs that effectively
22 control access to Plaintiffs’ copyrighted motion pictures and television shows on
23 those discs, thereby violating § 1201(a); (b) copies the resulting unprotected digital
24 files containing Plaintiffs’ works to a computer system, thereby infringing Plaintiffs’
25 exclusive rights to reproduce their works under § 106(1); and (c) transmits
26 performances from the unauthorized copies that VidAngel makes to the public,
27 thereby infringing Plaintiffs’ exclusive rights to perform their works publicly under
28 § 106(4).

ER569

NOTICE OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
16-CV-04109-AB (PLAX)

Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 27 Filed 08/22/16 Page 3 of 45 Page ID #:585

1

2.

VidAngel’s defenses to violating Plaintiffs’ rights are meritless.

2

3.

Absent a preliminary injunction, Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm,

3 including with respect to their ability to exercise their exclusive rights, their
4 relationships and goodwill with authorized licensees, and the development of the
5 market for on-demand streaming. The balance of equities tips decidedly in
6 Plaintiffs’ favor, and an injunction is in the public interest.
7

This Motion is based upon this Notice of Motion and Motion; the attached

8 Memorandum of Points and Authorities; the Declarations of Tedd Cittadine
9 (“Cittadine Decl.”), Rose Leda Ehler (“Ehler Decl.”), Kelly M. Klaus (“Klaus
10 Decl.”) and Robert Schumann (“Schumann Decl.”) and Exhibits thereto; all
11 documents on file in this action; and such further or additional evidence or
12 argument as may be presented before or at the time of the hearing on this Motion.
13
14 DATED: August 22, 2016

MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP

15
16
17
18
19

By:

/s/ Kelly M. Klaus
KELLY M. KLAUS
Attorney for Plaintiffs

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ER570

-2NOTICE OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
16-CV-04109-AB (PLAX)

Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 27 Filed 08/22/16 Page 4 of 45 Page ID #:586

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1

Page

2
3
4

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1
FACTUAL BACKGROUND...................................................................................... 4

5
6

A.

Plaintiffs And Their Copyrighted Works................................................ 4

B.

VidAngel Builds Its Business By Exploiting Plaintiffs’ Rights ............. 5

7

1.

10

C.

11

How VidAngel Works .................................................................. 7

3.

9

VidAngel’s Decision To Create An Unlicensed Service ............. 5

2.

8

VidAngel’s Escalating Marketing And Recent Growth ............... 9

VidAngel’s Letters To Plaintiffs And Other Studios, And This
Lawsuit .................................................................................................. 10

12 ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 11
13 I.
14

PLAINTIFFS ARE LIKELY TO SUCCEED ON THE MERITS OF
THEIR CLAIMS ............................................................................................. 11
A.

15

Plaintiffs Will Succeed On Their DMCA Claim .................................. 11
1.

VidAngel Circumvents The Technological Protection
Measures That Control Access To Plaintiffs’ Works On
Discs............................................................................................ 12

2.

VidAngel Has No Defense To Its Violation Of § 1201(a) ......... 13

16
17
18

a.

The DMCA Makes No Exception For Businesses
That Want To Circumvent To Provide Filters ................. 13

20

b.

The FMA Does Not Authorize Circumvention................ 14

21

c.

There Is No Fair Use Exemption To § 1201(a)
Liability ............................................................................ 15

19

22
23

B.

Plaintiffs Will Succeed On Their Copyright Infringement Claims ...... 16
1.

Plaintiffs Own Or Control Valid Copyrights In The Works
That VidAngel Exploits .............................................................. 16

2.

26

VidAngel Violates Plaintiffs’ Exclusive Rights To
Reproduce And Publicly Perform Their Copyrighted
Works .......................................................................................... 16

27

a.

24
25

28

ER571

VidAngel Violates Plaintiffs’ Exclusive Right To
Reproduce Their Works By Making Copies .................... 17
-iPLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
16-CV-04109-AB (PLAX)

Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 27 Filed 08/22/16 Page 5 of 45 Page ID #:587

TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)

1
2
b.

3
4

Page

VidAngel Violates Plaintiffs’ Exclusive Right To
Publicly Perform Their Copyrighted Works .................... 17
i.

VidAngel Publicly Performs Plaintiffs’
Works ..................................................................... 17

ii.

VidAngel’s “Buy-Sellback” Scheme Does
Not Transform VidAngel’s Public
Performances Into Private Ones............................. 18

5
6
7
3.

8

None of VidAngel’s Defenses Excuse Its Infringement ............ 21
a.

The FMA Does Not Excuse VidAngel’s
Infringement ..................................................................... 21

b.

11

VidAngel’s Affirmative Defense Of Fair Use Does
Not Excuse Its Infringement ............................................ 22

12

i.

VidAngel’s Wholesale Copying And Publicly
Performing Plaintiffs’ Works Are
Commercial And Non-Transformative .................. 23

ii.

Plaintiffs’ Copyrighted Works Are Highly
Creative .................................................................. 24

iii.

VidAngel Copies The Entirety Of Plaintiffs’
Works And Publicly Performs Substantially
The Entirety Of Them ............................................ 24

iv.

VidAngel’s Service Undermines Existing
And Potential Markets For Plaintiffs’ Works ........ 25

9
10

13
14
15
16
17
18
c.

19
20

II.

The First Sale Doctrine Does Not Authorize
VidAngel’s Copying or Streaming................................... 26

21

PLAINTIFFS WILL SUFFER IRREPARABLE HARM ABSENT AN
INJUNCTION ................................................................................................. 27

22

A.

VidAngel’s Unauthorized Service Causes Immediate And
Irreparable Harms ................................................................................. 27

B.

Plaintiffs’ Motion Is Timely, And VidAngel’s Assertions of
“Delay” Do Not Negate Irreparable Harm ........................................... 30

23
24
25 III.
26
27

THE BALANCE OF HARDSHIPS TIPS DECISIVELY FOR
PLAINTIFFS ................................................................................................... 31

IV.

A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST ........... 32

V.

MINIMAL SECURITY SHOULD BE REQUIRED...................................... 33

28

ER572

-iiPLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
16-CV-04109-AB (PLAX)

Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 27 Filed 08/22/16 Page 6 of 45 Page ID #:588

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)

2

Page

3 CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................... 33
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

ER573

-iiiPLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
16-CV-04109-AB (PLAX)

Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 27 Filed 08/22/16 Page 7 of 45 Page ID #:589

1

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)

2
3 FEDERAL CASES

4 321 Studios v. Metro Goldwyn Mayer Studios, Inc.,
307 F. Supp. 2d 1085 (N.D. Cal. 2004)................................................................ 12
5
6 A & M Records, Inc. v. A.L.W., Ltd.,
855 F.2d 368 (7th Cir. 1988) ................................................................................ 20
7
8 A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.,
239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001) .............................................................................. 16
9
American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc.,
10
134 S. Ct. 2498 (2014)...................................................................... 3, 7, 17, 18, 19
11
Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp.,
12
673 F. Supp. 2d 943 (N.D. Cal. 2009).................................................................. 32
13
Arc of Cal. v. Douglas,
14
757 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 30, 31
15 Arista Records LLC v. Myxer, Inc.,
No. CV 08-03935 GAF, 2011 WL 11660773 (C.D. Cal. 2011) .......................... 25
16
17 Authors Guild. v. Google, Inc.,
804 F.3d 202 (2d Cir. 2015) ................................................................................. 24
18
19 Cadence Design Sys., Inc. v. Avant! Corp.,
125 F.3d 824 (9th Cir. 1997) ................................................................................ 31
20
21 Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.,
510 U.S. 569 (1994) ................................................................................. 23, 24, 25
22
Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc.,
23
934 F. Supp. 2d 640 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) .................................................................. 26
24
Central Point Software, Inc. v. Global Software & Accessories, Inc.,
25
880 F. Supp. 957 (E.D.N.Y. 1995) ....................................................................... 20
26 Clean Flicks of Colo. v. LLC v. Soderbergh,
433 F. Supp. 2d 1236 (D. Colo. 2006) ................................................................. 24
27
28

ER574

-ivPLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
16-CV-04109-AB (PLAX)

Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 27 Filed 08/22/16 Page 8 of 45 Page ID #:590

1
2

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
(continued)

Page(s)

3 Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Redd Horne, Inc.,
749 F.2d 154 (3d Cir. 1984) ..................................................................... 17, 18, 19
4
5 Dish Network, L.L.C. v. Vicxon Corp.,
No. 12-CV-9-L WVG, 2013 WL 3894905 (S.D. Cal. July 26, 2013) ................. 15
6
Dr. Seuss Enters., L.P. v. Penguin Books, USA, Inc.,
7
109 F.3d 1394 (9th Cir. 1997) .............................................................................. 25
8
Eldred v. Ashcroft,
9
537 U.S. 186 (2002) ............................................................................................. 32
10
Elvis Presley Enters., Inc. v. Passport Video,
11
349 F.3d 622 (9th Cir. 2003) .................................................................... 23, 24, 25
12 Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters.,
471 U.S. 539 (1985) ............................................................................................. 23
13
14 Hooks v. Kitsap Tenant Support Servs., Inc.,
816 F.3d 550 (9th Cir. 2016) ................................................................................ 14
15
16 Kelly v. Primco Mgmt., Inc.,
No. CV-14-07263 BRO, 2015 WL 10990368 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 12,
17
2015) ..................................................................................................................... 32
18
L.A. News Serv. v. Tullo,
19
973 F.2d 791 (9th Cir. 1992) ................................................................................ 25
20 Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Publ’g,
512 F.3d 522 (9th Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 23, 25
21
22 Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Paperback Software Int’l,
740 F. Supp. 37 (D. Mass. 1990).......................................................................... 30
23
24 Lydo Enters., Inc. v. City of Las Vegas,
745 F.2d 1211 (9th Cir. 1984) .............................................................................. 30
25
26 MAI Sys. Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc.,
991 F.2d 511 (9th Cir. 1993) .......................................................................... 17, 22
27
MDY Indus., LLC v. Blizzard Entm’t, Inc.,
28
629 F.3d 928 (9th Cir. 2010) ...................................................................... 2, 12, 14
-v-

ER575

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
16-CV-04109-AB (PLAX)

Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 27 Filed 08/22/16 Page 9 of 45 Page ID #:591

1
2

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
(continued)

Page(s)

3 Monge v. Maya Magazines, Inc.,
688 F.3d 1164 (9th Cir. 2012) ......................................................................... 23,24
4
5 On Command Video Corporation v. Columbia Pictures Industries,
777 F. Supp. 787 (N.D. Cal. 1991)................................................................. 18, 19
6
Peker v. Masters Collection,
7
96 F. Supp. 2d 216 (E.D.N.Y. 2000) .................................................................... 26
8
Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
9
508 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2007) .............................................................................. 22
10
Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc.,
11
134 S. Ct. 1962 (2014)................................................................................ 4, 30, 31
12 Realnetworks, Inc. v. DVD Copy Control Ass’n,
641 F. Supp. 2d 913 (N.D. Cal. 2009)............................................................ 12, 32
13
14 Red Baron-Franklin Park, Inc. v. Taito Corp.,
883 F.2d 275 (4th Cir. 1989) ................................................................................ 26
15
16 Salinger v. Colting,
607 F.3d 68 (2d Cir. 2010) ................................................................................... 27
17
18 Ticketmaster L.L.C. v. RMG Techs., Inc.,
507 F. Supp. 2d 1096 (C.D. Cal. 2007) ................................................................ 28
19
Triad Sys. Corp. v. Se. Express Co.,
20
64 F.3d 1330 (9th Cir. 1995) ................................................................................ 31
21
TRW Inc. v. Andrews,
22
534 U.S. 19 (2001) ............................................................................................... 13
23 UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Escape Media Grp., Inc.,
No. 11 CIV. 8407, 2014 WL 5089743 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2014) ...................... 17
24
25 United Fabrics Int’l, Inc. v. C&J Wear, Inc.,
630 F.3d 1255, 1257 (9th Cir. 2011) .................................................................. 16
26
27 United States v. Crippen,
No. CR 09-703 PSG, 2010 WL 7198205 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2010) ............ 15, 16
28
-vi-

ER576

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
16-CV-04109-AB (PLAX)

Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 27 Filed 08/22/16 Page 10 of 45 Page ID #:592

1
2

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
(continued)

Page(s)

3 Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes,
111 F. Supp. 2d 294 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) ............................................................ 12, 16
4
5 Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. v. WTV Systems, Inc.,
824 F. Supp. 2d 1003 (C.D. Cal. 2011) ........................................ 18, 19, 27, 29, 33
6
Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc.,
7
555 U.S. 7 (2008) ................................................................................................. 11
8
Worldwide Church of God v. Philadelphia Church of God, Inc.,
9
227 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir. 2000) .............................................................................. 24
10
WPIX, Inc. v. ivi, Inc.,
11
691 F.3d 275 (2d Cir. 2012) ................................................................................. 28
12 FEDERAL STATUTES
13
17 U.S.C. § 101................................................................................................ 3, 17, 22
14
17 U.S.C. § 106............................................................................................. 14, passim
15
17 U.S.C. § 106(1) ................................................................................................. 1, 17
16
17 17 U.S.C. § 106(3) ..................................................................................................... 26
18 17 U.S.C. § 106(4) ............................................................................................. 1, 3, 17
19 17 U.S.C. § 107.................................................................................................... 15, 22
20
17 U.S.C. § 109(a) ..................................................................................................... 26
21
17 U.S.C. § 110.............................................................................................. 14, 15, 21
22
23 17 U.S.C. § 110(11) ........................................................................................ 2, passim
24 17 U.S.C. § 117(c) ..................................................................................................... 31
25 17 U.S.C. § 410(c) ..................................................................................................... 16
26 17 U.S.C. § 1201.................................................................................................. 14, 15
27
17 U.S.C. § 1201(a) ........................................................................................ 1, passim
28
-vii-

ER577

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
16-CV-04109-AB (PLAX)

Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 27 Filed 08/22/16 Page 11 of 45 Page ID #:593

1

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
(continued)

2

Page(s)

3 17 U.S.C. § 1201(c) ................................................................................................... 15
4 17 U.S.C. § 1201(d)-(j) .............................................................................................. 13
5
FEDERAL REGULATIONS
6
37 CFR pt. 201.40 ...................................................................................................... 13
7
LEGISLATIVE MATERIALS
8
9 151 Cong. Rec. S501-S502 (daily ed. Jan. 25, 2005)...................................... 2, 15, 22
10 H.R. 4586, Serial No. 94 (June 17, 2004) ................................................................. 15
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ER578

-viiiPLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
16-CV-04109-AB (PLAX)

Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 27 Filed 08/22/16 Page 12 of 45 Page ID #:594

1

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

2

INTRODUCTION
Defendant VidAngel operates an online on-demand video streaming service

3

4 that blatantly violates Plaintiffs’ rights under the DMCA and the Copyright Act:


5

VidAngel starts by circumventing the technological protection

6

measures on DVDs and Blu-ray discs (collectively, “Discs”) that

7

control access to the digital media files of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted

8

movies and television shows—or, as VidAngel’s employees say, they

9

“rip[]” the movies—a violation of § 1201(a) of the DMCA. Schumann
Decl. ¶¶ 7, 35-38, 43, Ex. C at 23; Dkt. 11(Counter-Complaint) ¶ 61.

10


11

VidAngel then copies to computer servers the copyrighted works that

12

VidAngel has ripped—a violation of Plaintiffs’ exclusive rights to

13

reproduce their works under § 106(1) of the Copyright Act. Schumann

14

Decl. ¶¶ 37, 40-42, Ex. C at 23-25; Ehler Decl. Ex. EE at Tr. 58:1-4.1


15

VidAngel then streams performances of those copyrighted works over

16

and over again to numerous VidAngel customers, i.e., “to the public”—

17

a violation of Plaintiffs’ exclusive rights to publicly perform their

18

works under § 106(4). Schumann Decl. ¶¶ 7-8, Ex. C at 23-25; Ehler

19

Decl. Ex. EE at Tr. 90:18-22.
Legitimate on-demand streaming services—e.g., iTunes, Amazon and Google

20

21 Play—run their businesses without illegally circumventing and with authorization to
22 copy and stream Plaintiffs’ works. These legitimate services negotiate and pay for
23 the rights they use. VidAngel does not, and it thereby acquires an unjust
24 competitive advantage that VidAngel touts in its advertising. Id. Ex. A (examples).
25
1

All transcript references are to the 30(b)(6) deposition of VidAngel’s CEO, Neal
Harmon on August 11, 2016, excerpts at Ehler Decl., Ex. EE. The “Tr.” references
27 are to the page and line of the original deposition transcript rather than the page as
28 consecutively numbered in the Exhibits.
-126

ER579

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
16-CV-04109-AB (PLAX)

Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 27 Filed 08/22/16 Page 13 of 45 Page ID #:595

1 VidAngel’s illegal conduct threatens imminent, irreparable harm by depriving
2 Plaintiffs of their rights to control their content, interfering with relationships with
3 licensees, and undercutting the growth of the legitimate on-demand streaming
4 market. Even VidAngel’s followers recognize VidAngel causes harm. Id. Ex. C (“I
5 could watch Star Wars 7 on VidAngel (only filtering one small thing) for $1 before
6 any other video streaming service had it available. If you guys are allowed to rip,
7 stream, and resell DVDs, the other streaming services will want to do it too – it’s
8 only fair.”).
9
10

VidAngel tries to defend its service with three meritless arguments.
First, VidAngel argues that Congress sanctioned all of its unlawful conduct

11 under the Family Movie Act of 2005 (“FMA”), 17 U.S.C. § 110(11), because
12 VidAngel allows its users to select content “filters” that skip or mute content from
13 streamed movies. The claims at issue have nothing to do with the filtering aspects
14 of VidAngel’s service, and the FMA provides VidAngel no shelter on this motion.
15 The FMA says that one does not infringe copyright by making motion picture
16 content “imperceptible” (or providing software that does the same) in the context of
17 private home viewing. Id. The FMA does not say that a business that filters thereby
18 has a total exemption from the DMCA or from having to license the right to copy
19 and publicly stream movies. On the contrary, the FMA makes clear that the relevant
20 filtering must be done from an “authorized copy,” which VidAngel does not make
21 and from which it does not stream. Id.; see 151 Cong. Rec. S501-S502 (daily ed.
22 Jan. 25, 2005) (Sen. Hatch) (“[A]n infringing transmission of a performance to a
23 household, [is] not rendered non-infringing by section 110(11) by virtue of the fact
24 that limited portions [of the performance] are made imperceptible.”). Filtering does
25 not make an underlying unlicensed service legal. And the FMA provides no defense
26 to circumventing, which is “distinct from infring[ing].” MDY Indus., LLC v.
27 Blizzard Entm’t, Inc., 629 F.3d 928, 946, 950 (9th Cir. 2010).
28

ER580

-2PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
16-CV-04109-AB (PLAX)

Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 27 Filed 08/22/16 Page 14 of 45 Page ID #:596

1

Second, VidAngel claims it does not violate the public performance right

2 because it makes only “private” performances to users who “purchase” Discs from
3 VidAngel. That is wrong. When it streams movies over the Internet, VidAngel is
4 “transmitting” performances to users. Transmissions infringe § 106(4) where, as
5 here, the defendant makes them “to the public, by means of any device or process,
6 whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display
7 receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different
8 times.” 17 U.S.C. § 101 (defining “[t]o perform . . . a work ‘publicly’”). A long
9 line of precedent construing this provision (the “Transmit Clause”)—including in
10 the Supreme Court’s recent decision in American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v.
11 Aereo, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2498 (2014)—makes it clear that VidAngel’s online, on12 demand transmissions are public performances. They do not become “private”
13 performances just because VidAngel purports to “sell” its users the Discs (which
14 VidAngel then immediately offers to buy back for a net access price of $1 a day).
15 VidAngel’s “buy-sellback” scheme is an artifice—what its CEO called a “creative
16 way” to compete while trying to be “buttoned up legally.” Ehler Decl. Ex. DD at
17 366. This sleight of hand does not cure VidAngel’s infringement. What matters is
18 whether VidAngel is transmitting performances to the public, not the label that
19 VidAngel uses to describe its transactions. Aereo, 134 S. Ct. at 2509 (“[W]hen
20 Aereo streams the same television program to multiple subscribers, it ‘transmit[s]
21 . . . a performance’ to all of them”). VidAngel publicly performs without a license.
22

Third, VidAngel argues that Plaintiffs forfeited the right to a preliminary

23 injunction because they did not immediately sue VidAngel when its outside litigator
24 (and recently appointed General Counsel) sent letters describing parts of the service
25 to Plaintiffs and other motion picture studios in July 2015. Dkt. 11, Ex. A. At that
26 point, as noted in those letters, VidAngel had fewer than 5,000 users and described
27 its service as being in a “limited beta.” Id. The letters did not say when VidAngel
28 would launch publicly, and Plaintiffs could not have known whether the service
-3-

ER581

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
16-CV-04109-AB (PLAX)

Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 27 Filed 08/22/16 Page 15 of 45 Page ID #:597

1 would survive, let alone thrive. As the Supreme Court has recognized, “[e]ven if an
2 infringement is harmful, the harm may be too small to justify the cost of litigation.”
3 Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1962, 1976 (2014). Copyright
4 owners do not have to immediately sue anyone who infringes, or forever lose the
5 right to seek a preliminary injunction; such a requirement would lead to unnecessary
6 litigation and burdens on the courts. VidAngel started to advertise more
7 aggressively earlier this year and gained traction in the press and online blogs; it
8 now has more than [

] active monthly users (and more than [

] total)

9 and continues to grow. Ehler Decl. Ex. D; id. Ex. AA at 317. Plaintiffs were
10 justified in suing when they did, and they satisfy all the requirements for injunctive
11 relief.
12

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

13

A.

Plaintiffs And Their Copyrighted Works

14

Plaintiffs, directly or through affiliates, invest substantial resources and effort

15 to produce and distribute some of the most popular and critically acclaimed movies
16 and television programs in the world. Their works include, among many others,
17 Frozen (2013) (Disney), Star Wars: The Force Awakens (2015) (Lucasfilm), Avatar
18 (2009) (Fox), and Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone (2001) (Warner Bros.).
19

Copyright protection is critical to Plaintiffs’ ability to obtain a return on their

20 substantial investments in these and other works and to underwrite the production of
21 new creative content, often at great financial risk. Cittadine Decl. ¶ 8. A studio will
22 spend tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars producing, distributing and
23 marketing a major motion picture. Id. ¶ 7. Third parties that wish to exercise
24 Plaintiffs’ rights to exploit their works must negotiate to obtain those rights. Id.
25 ¶ 14.
26

Plaintiffs employ different strategies to make their content available to meet

27 consumer demand, but each Plaintiff tries to tailor the value and price for each
28 offering—or “distribution channel”—to the willingness of customers (and licensees)
-4-

ER582

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
16-CV-04109-AB (PLAX)

Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 27 Filed 08/22/16 Page 16 of 45 Page ID #:598

1 to pay for those offerings. Id. ¶ 9. Plaintiffs distribute and license their content for
2 home entertainment across a number of channels. These include, among others:
3 (1) physical Discs; (2) digital download through services like iTunes, VUDU or
4 Amazon Video; (3) on-demand streaming for short-term viewing on a per5 transaction fee (e.g., iTunes Store or Google Play Store); or (4) subscription on6 demand streaming (e.g., Netflix or Hulu). Id.
7

Plaintiffs’ strategic process of releasing their content across different

8 distribution channels and to different licensees over time is called “windowing.” Id.
9 ¶ 15. A Plaintiff may decide to release specific titles only through certain channels
10 for a prescribed period, e.g., releasing titles for purchase on Discs or digital
11 download before releasing them to on-demand streaming. Id. ¶¶ 15, 33. Plaintiffs
12 often negotiate higher licensing fees in exchange for granting a licensee the
13 exclusive right to perform a movie or television show during a particular time
14 period. Id. ¶ 15. The online and digital channels have become increasingly
15 important revenue sources. Id. ¶ 10.
16

Especially in this digital age, to exercise their exclusive rights under

17 copyright, Plaintiffs must protect their content from piracy and unauthorized use.
18 Technological protection measures that control access (here, “access controls”) are
19 one way in which Plaintiffs ensure that copies of their content stored on Discs
20 cannot be easily copied and disseminated digitally. Schumann Decl. ¶¶ 20, 27. The
21 access controls that encrypt the digital files on Discs can lawfully be unencrypted
22 for playback or copying only by authorized devices. Id. ¶¶ 20-34.
23
24
25

B.

VidAngel Builds Its Business By Exploiting Plaintiffs’ Rights
1.

VidAngel’s Decision To Create An Unlicensed Service

In the fall of 2013, VidAngel first launched a standalone filtering service

26 through a web browser plug-in. Ehler Decl. Ex. EE at Tr. 135:12-136:7. This
27 technology permitted a user to apply filters to content streamed from YouTube (and
28 if a full-length movie, obtained legitimately through Google Play). Id.
-5-

ER583

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
16-CV-04109-AB (PLAX)

Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 27 Filed 08/22/16 Page 17 of 45 Page ID #:599

1

In the fall of 2014, VidAngel decided to “pivot” its business to its current

2 service, which does not simply provide filtering but offers unauthorized streaming
3 for a daily fee. Id. Ex. V at 217; Id. Ex. EE at Tr. 136:8-12. VidAngel knew from
4 surveying users who stopped using its prior service that [
] Id. Ex. V at 227. It also had

5

6 information that only 1% of Americans would actually pay to watch filtered
7 versions of movies if you charged them to use a filter. Id. Ex. E at 61. VidAngel
8 decided that, rather than provide filters to run on streams from licensed services, it
9 would rip and copy Discs and charge users for streaming. When investors
10 questioned whether the company was getting into a [
], Mr. Harmon, the CEO, assured them that

11

] Id. Ex. W at 234 (emphasis added).2

12

From the outset of its “pivot,” VidAngel knew it would need licenses to run a

13

14 streaming business. VidAngel, however, decided on a strategy of asking for
15 forgiveness, not permission. As Mr. Harmon put it in a fall 2014 email to an
16 investor: [
17
18
] Id.; see also id. Ex. DD at 366 (Feb. 2015: Mr. Harmon saying VidAngel

19

20 would “have to be a lot bigger” to “get licensing from Hollywood. . . . Until then,
21 we sell DVDs and Blu-Rays to you, vault them in our warehouse, and stream you a
22 filtered movie. The buyback system was the most creative way we could come up
23 with in order to offer you the value of a Redbox while staying buttoned up
24 legally.”); id. Ex. X at 257 (Sept. 2015: Mr. Harmon saying VidAngel
25
2

At deposition, Mr. Harmon claimed this email was discussing a model for users to
“trade or share” their own Discs. Ehler Decl. Ex. EE at Tr. 146:8-148:6. But the
27 statement that VidAngel would be a
28 was true regardless of the source of Discs. Id. Ex. W at 234.
-626

ER584

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
16-CV-04109-AB (PLAX)

Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 27 Filed 08/22/16 Page 18 of 45 Page ID #:600

1
2
3
4

]).
2.

How VidAngel Works

For every movie or TV show it streams, VidAngel first rips a digital copy of

5 the content from a single Disc. Id. Ex. EE at Tr. 127:6-131:7; Schumann Decl. ¶¶
6 37-39, 42, Exs. C at 23, D. Using RedFox AnyDVD HD software—popularly
7 known as a “ripping” tool—VidAngel circumvents the technological protections—
8 CSS, AACS, BD+—that Plaintiffs use to control access to their content. Ehler Decl.
9 Ex. S. VidAngel previously used the same software sold by the same developers
10 and staff of SlySoft, a ripping software company whose owner was found guilty of
11 distributing illegal circumvention tools. Id. Exs. F, EE at Tr. 68:9-69:16.
12

After circumventing the access controls, VidAngel copies the underlying

13 digital files (i.e., the movie or television show) onto its computers and then saves
14 additional copies on leased third-party servers. Schumann Decl. ¶ 40-42. VidAngel
15 uses the ripped digital copies stored on those servers to stream content. Id.; Ehler
16 Decl. Ex. EE at Tr. 90:18-22.
17

VidAngel charges customers for its on-demand streaming through a sham

18 “buy-sellback” scheme. VidAngel adopted this scheme as part of the “pivot,”
19 believing that it provided a loophole from public performance liability in light of
20 dicta in the Aereo decision. Id. Ex. V at 217. As discussed at pp. 18-21, infra,
21 VidAngel’s reliance on “buy-sellback” does not change its liability. The facts
22 showing “buy-sellback” to be a fiction, however, speak volumes about VidAngel’s
23 credibility in defending its service.
24

“Buy-sellback” works like this: Users pay an upfront fee of $20, purportedly

25 to “purchase” a physical Disc. Id. Ex. P at 181, 198 (“like a ‘security deposit’”).
26 VidAngel then associates the user with an individual Disc that VidAngel has bar27 coded and stored at its facility (the so-called “vault copy”). Id. Ex. EE at Tr. 51:528 20; 184:22-185:9. The user does not control or possess the vault copy; VidAngel
-7-

ER585

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
16-CV-04109-AB (PLAX)

Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 27 Filed 08/22/16 Page 19 of 45 Page ID #:601

1 does. Id. at 124:21-25. VidAngel claims that, upon request, it will transfer
2 possession of the vault copy to the user. Id. at 228:21-229:1. To date, however,
3 VidAngel has received only [
4 and has returned only [

] requests from users to receive the physical Disc

] Discs—out of more than [

] purported “sales”

5 thus far in 2016 alone. Id. at 229:2-12; 189:21-190:8.3
Furthermore, VidAngel does not actually stream from the vault copy—the

6

7 copy that VidAngel claims the customer “owns.” Id. at 127:6-20. Rather, VidAngel
8 circumvents the access controls on a Disc, copies the content and then streams from
9 the ripped copy that resides on VidAngel’s leased server. Id. at 130:20-131:17.
10 VidAngel then encourages the user to “sell back” the Disc at a “buyback” price that
11 goes down by $1 or $2 for each 24-hour period. Id. Ex. G at 93-94 (VidAngel
12 promotional clips on YouTube).4 The net effect is that the user pays $1 or $2 a day
13 for on-demand access to stream the movie or television show—daily prices which
14 VidAngel prominently features in its advertising. Id. Ex. G.
VidAngel constantly encourages users to treat the service as an online rental

15

16 service, which they can do by simply clicking to “sellback” the movie for credit.
17 Among other things, VidAngel provides: (1) an icon in the corner of the viewing
18 screen, allowing the user to initiate sellback during the stream; (2) a sellback
19 “popup” box at the end of the movie; (3) a link to sellback in the user dashboard;
20
21
22
23
24
25

3

Other inconsistencies expose the fiction that VidAngel is performing the contents
of a Disc the user “owns.” For example, the [
] users who actually requested and
received physical Discs can still stream the same content via VidAngel—proving
the stream comes from a different copy. Id. at 235:6-21. And, users who want to
watch a television show “purchase” access only to a single episode. Id. Ex. H.
Discs of Plaintiffs’ television shows contain entire seasons. If a user actually
“owned” the Disc, the user could watch the full season.
4

“How VidAngel $1 Movie Works in 15 Seconds” is available on YouTube at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=map6EIP41bY (last visited Aug. 21, 2016).
27 “How $1 Movies Work on VidAngel Sellback” is available at
28 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvcF4x1d0xo (last visited Aug. 21, 2016).
-826

ER586

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
16-CV-04109-AB (PLAX)

Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 27 Filed 08/22/16 Page 20 of 45 Page ID #:602

1 (4) an email reminder about the sellback option after 24 hours; and (5) until this
2 lawsuit, an “auto-sellback” default setting, whereby users would automatically set
3 their devices to sellback, and thus be assured the equivalent of a rental transaction.
4 Id. Ex. BB at 336-37.
3.

5
6

VidAngel’s Escalating Marketing And Recent Growth

VidAngel’s strategy has involved rapidly growing its user base. In July 2015,

7 VidAngel had fewer than 4,848 users, but ambitious growth plans. Dkt. 11, Ex. A at
8 3. A November 2015 investor presentation projected that for 2016, VidAngel would
9 reach [

10 customers and [
11

] in revenue; for 2017, [

] customers and [

] in revenue; and for 2018, [

]
] customers and

in revenue—with projected profit margins of [

]. Ehler

12 Decl. Ex. Y at 283.
13

To achieve these ends, VidAngel this year embarked on an aggressive

14 marketing campaign, explicitly contrasting its $1-a-day (or $2 for HD) price
15 (because it foregoes license fees) with the more typical $4.99 or $5.99 daily fee
16 charged by licensed services; VidAngel also boasts of its ability to offer movies not
17 available on other services. Ehler Decl. Exs. A, B. VidAngel’s users have
18 responded to VidAngel’s marketing cues:
19
20

One more thing I love about VidAngel is that I can easily
download NEW movies cheaper than anywhere else! I
probably won’t edit this one for our family, but I’m so
happy I can still just rent it for $2 a night!

21
22 Id. Ex. I at 98; see also id. at 101 (“We bought Star Wars and sold it back for a total
23 of $1 when it was like $5 to rent on Amazon. So even if you don’t need content
24 cleaned, it’s a great video service.”).
25

This spring, VidAngel began adding more of Plaintiffs’ works to its service,

26 with a particular focus on marketing movies as soon as they were released on Disc.
27 On April 5, 2016, VidAngel offered Star Wars: The Force Awakens. Id. Ex. J.
28 April 5 was the same day that The Force Awakens was released for purchase on
-9-

ER587

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
16-CV-04109-AB (PLAX)

Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 27 Filed 08/22/16 Page 21 of 45 Page ID #:603

1 Disc and digital download, but was not yet available to the on-demand streaming
2 market. Cittadine Decl. ¶ 16. VidAngel also released Disney’s Zootopia, Warner
3 Bros.’s Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice and Keanu, and Fox’s DeadPool and
4 The Revenant, among others, within a week of their release on Disc and, for some of
5 these titles, before they were released on any other on-demand streaming service.
6 Ehler Decl. Ex. N.
7

By June 2016, when Plaintiffs filed suit, VidAngel had grown to nearly

8 [

] monthly transactions across well over [

] monthly active users. Id.

9 Ex. AA at 315, 317. VidAngel had also streamed over [

movies in the

10 first half of 2016. Id. Ex. EE at Tr. 189:21-190:8. VidAngel continues to
11 aggressively market its service using Plaintiffs’ copyrighted content.
12

C.

VidAngel’s Letters To Plaintiffs And Other Studios, And This
Lawsuit

13
14

Late last summer, VidAngel’s then-outside counsel, David Quinto, sent letters

15 to Plaintiffs or their corporate parents, ostensibly expressing interest in purchasing
16 more Discs directly from each company. Dkt. 11, Ex. A. Mr. Quinto sent the letters
17 to General Counsels, not to people in business development. He purported to
18 describe VidAngel’s nascent service, which he said was in “limited beta” testing.
19 Id. at 3. Mr. Quinto said nothing about VidAngel circumventing the access-control
20 measures on Discs. He said nothing about VidAngel marketing its service for $1-a21 day on-demand streaming through its “buy-sellback” scheme or offering Plaintiffs’
22 content before that content was available to authorized licensees.
23

Plaintiffs started investigating their potential legal claims against VidAngel

24 almost immediately after receiving Mr. Quinto’s letter. Cittadine Decl. ¶ 35.
25 Starting earlier this year, VidAngel launched a much broader advertising offensive
26 and started to gain traction in the press and on blogs, and its service started to grow
27 to significant user numbers. On June 9, 2016, Plaintiffs filed this suit.
28

ER588

-10PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
16-CV-04109-AB (PLAX)

Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 27 Filed 08/22/16 Page 22 of 45 Page ID #:604

ER589

Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 27 Filed 08/22/16 Page 23 of 45 Page ID #:605

1 infringement is required. See MDY Indus., 629 F.3d at 946, 949, 952 (expressly
2 declining to adopt a “infringement nexus requirement”) (emphasis added).
1.

3

VidAngel Circumvents The Technological Protection
Measures That Control Access To Plaintiffs’ Works On Discs

4
5

A technological measure effectively controls access to a copyrighted work if,

6 “in the ordinary course of its operation, [it] requires the application of information,
7 or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access
8 to the work.” 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a). Plaintiffs use CSS, AACS and BD+ to prevent
9 unauthorized access to their content on Discs. Schumann Decl. ¶¶ 20, 27. All three
10 qualify as DMCA access controls. See id. ¶¶ 20-34; Realnetworks, Inc. v. DVD
11 Copy Control Ass’n, 641 F. Supp. 2d 913, 932 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (“CSS . . .
12 effectively controls access to . . . copyrighted DVD content”); 321 Studios v. Metro
13 Goldwyn Mayer Studios, Inc., 307 F. Supp. 2d 1085, 1095 (N.D. Cal. 2004);
14 Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes, 111 F. Supp. 2d 294, 317-18 (S.D.N.Y.
15 2000).
16

VidAngel circumvents these access controls. To circumvent is “to

17 descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid,
18 bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority
19 of the copyright owner.” 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(3)(A). VidAngel admits that it “uses
20 a commercially available software program to automatically allow read-access for
21 the purpose of mounting the DVD [and Blu-ray] files for uploading onto a
22 computer, in the process removing restrictions on DVD [and Blu-ray] encryption.”
23 Dkt. 11 ¶ 50(ii) (emphasis added); see Ehler Decl. Ex. S (invoice for AnyDvd HD);
24 Schumann Decl. ¶¶ 35-39. In short, VidAngel circumvents technological measures
25 that control access, and is liable under § 1201(a).
26
27
28

ER590

-12PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
16-CV-04109-AB (PLAX)

Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 27 Filed 08/22/16 Page 24 of 45 Page ID #:606

2.

1

VidAngel Has No Defense To Its Violation Of § 1201(a)
a.

2

The DMCA Makes No Exception For Businesses That
Want To Circumvent To Provide Filters

3
VidAngel argues that its circumvention is lawful because “the making of a

4

5 decrypted copy [is] the necessary first step in making a lawfully purchased DVD
6 capable of being filtered.” See Dkt. 11 (Counter-Complaint) ¶¶ 61-62. That is not
7 true as a factual matter and is irrelevant as a legal matter. As VidAngel admits,
8 other services provide software that allows consumers to apply filters to Discs they
9 have purchased. See id. ¶ 34 (describing ClearPlay’s DVD-filtering service). What
10 VidAngel means is that circumventing is a “necessary first step” for the type of
11 business VidAngel wants to run—one that provides unauthorized on-demand access
12 to content streamed from copies ripped from Discs. Circumvention makes it easier
13 and cheaper for VidAngel to run its business, but that does not make the
14 circumvention lawful.
VidAngel’s circumvention does not fit into any enumerated exception to the

15

16 anti-circumvention right or any additional exception promulgated by the Librarian
17 of Congress.7 17 U.S.C. § 1201(d)-(j). Where, as here, “Congress explicitly
18 enumerates certain exceptions to a general prohibition, additional exceptions are not
19 to be implied, in the absence of evidence of a contrary legislative intent.” TRW Inc.
20 v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19, 28 (2001) (quotations omitted).
21
22
23
24
25

7

The DMCA calls for the Librarian of Congress to engage in triennial rulemaking to
26 determine if certain noninfringing uses of a copyrighted work are entitled to an
exception. 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)(B)-(C). The exceptions the Librarian has
27 promulgated are at 37 CFR Part 201.40, and none applies to VidAngel. Indeed, the
28 Librarian has never even been asked to consider such an exception for filtering.
-13-

ER591

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
16-CV-04109-AB (PLAX)

Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 27 Filed 08/22/16 Page 25 of 45 Page ID #:607

b.

1
2

The FMA Does Not Authorize Circumvention

VidAngel argues that the FMA shows Congress’s intent to exempt VidAngel

3 from § 1201(a) liability. The FMA’s text and legislative history show the opposite
4 is true.
5

The FMA addresses a narrowly specified type of activity (the making

6 imperceptible of certain audio and video), which, if it falls within the FMA is “not
7 an infringement[] of copyright.” 17 U.S.C. § 110(11). Section 1201, however,
8 provides a separate cause of action that is not a claim of infringement. As the Ninth
9 Circuit explained—in the course of declining to adopt the requirement of a “nexus”
10 between a DMCA violation and infringement—the DMCA “create[d] a new
11 anticircumvention right in § 1201(a) distinct from infringement.” See MDY Indus.,
12 629 F.3d at 950 (emphasis added). “Infringement” is the violation of one of
13 copyright’s exclusive rights, which are found in § 106. It is not the same as
14 circumvention. The FMA further states that nothing in that exception to
15 infringement (§ 110(11)) “shall be construed to imply further rights under section
16 106 of this title, or to have any effect on defenses or limitations on rights granted
17 under any other section of this title or under any other paragraph of this section.” 17
18 U.S.C. § 110 (final sentence) (emphasis added). Section 1201(a) embodies rights
19 and defenses relating to circumvention and not infringement. The FMA by its plain
20 language provides VidAngel no defense.
21

Because “the statutory language is unambiguous and the statutory scheme is

22 coherent and consistent,” there is no need to examine legislative history. Hooks v.
23 Kitsap Tenant Support Servs., Inc., 816 F.3d 550, 562 (9th Cir. 2016). But the
24 legislative history confirms that the FMA does not excuse circumvention. The
25 section-by-section analysis by the FMA’s Senate sponsor states that the FMA “does
26 not provide any exemption from the anti-circumvention provisions of section 1201,”
27 and that it:
28

ER592

-14PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
16-CV-04109-AB (PLAX)

Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 27 Filed 08/22/16 Page 26 of 45 Page ID #:608

would not be a defense to a claim of violation of section
1201 that the circumvention is for the purpose of engaging
in the conduct covered by this new exemption in section
110(11) [the FMA], just as it is not a defense under section
1201 that the circumvention is for the purpose of engaging
in any other non-infringing conduct.

1
2
3
4

5 151 Cong. Rec. S502 (daily ed. Jan. 25, 2005); see id. (“Any suggestion that support
6 for the exercise of viewer choice . . . requires violation of either the copyright in the
7 work or of the copy protection schemes that provide protection for such work should
8 be rejected.”).8 The FMA provides VidAngel no defense to its § 1201(a) violations.
c.

9

There Is No Fair Use Exemption To § 1201(a) Liability

The fair use defense under § 107 does not apply to § 1201(a) violations. See,

10

11 e.g., Dish Network, L.L.C. v. Vicxon Corp., No. 12-CV-9-L WVG, 2013 WL
12 3894905, at *6 (S.D. Cal. July 26, 2013) (“[P]otential lawful or fair use is not a
13 defense to § 1201(a) when its requirements are established.”); United States v.
14 Crippen, No. CR 09-703 PSG, 2010 WL 7198205, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2010)
15 (“A reading of § 1201(c) that adds the fair use arrow to a defendant’s § 1201(a)
16 quiver contradicts the plain meaning of the statute and must be rejected.”).
17
8

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

When Congress first considered the FMA, in 2004, Representative Goodlatte
expressed concern that it might interfere with copyright owners’ rights under
§ 1201. Hearing on H.R. 4586, Serial No. 94 (June 17, 2004) at 84. He asked about
including an explicit provision to make clear that the FMA has no effect on § 1201.
Id. In a letter, the Register of Copyrights stated that such an explicit provision was
unnecessary because “[t]he anticircumvention provisions of section 1201 apply even
in cases where circumvention is carried out in order to engage in an act that is not an
act of infringement under the copyright statute.” Id. at 89. The Register advised
against including a specific statement confirming the inapplicability of the FMA to
§ 1201 claims, noting such a provision could create needless confusion regarding
the other exemptions from infringement in § 110 (where the FMA is codified) and
elsewhere in the Copyright Act: “To include in this new exemption a reference to
section 1201 when none of the other exemptions in section 110 or elsewhere in the
Copyright Act make such reference will imply that those existing exemptions also
apply to liability under the anticircumvention provisions, when it should be clear
that they do not.” Id.

ER593

-15PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
16-CV-04109-AB (PLAX)

Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 27 Filed 08/22/16 Page 27 of 45 Page ID #:609

1

“[T]he decision not to make fair use a defense to a claim under Section

2 1201(a) was quite deliberate.” Reimerdes, 111 F. Supp. 2d at 322. Congress was
3 well aware “that technological controls on access to copyrighted works might erode
4 fair uses by preventing access even for uses that would be deemed ‘fair,’” and
5 “struck a balance among the competing interests.” Id. (citing Commerce Com. Rep.
6 25-26). Reading a fair use defense into § 1201(a) would upset that balance and be
7 contrary to the statute. Crippen, 2010 WL 7198205, at *5 (§ 1201(a) is a
8 “rebalancing of interests that attempts to deal with special problems created by the
9 so-called digital revolution”; “[t]hat balancing [is] done by the DMCA, not by
10 adding fair use to the circumvention equation”) (citation omitted).
11

B.

Plaintiffs Will Succeed On Their Copyright Infringement Claims

12

Plaintiffs easily establish prima facie infringement claims because they

13 (1) “show ownership” and (2) demonstrate a violation of “at least one exclusive
14 right” (sections 1 and 2, infra). A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004,
15 1013 (9th Cir. 2001). VidAngel’s claimed defenses are meritless (section 3, infra).
1.

16

Plaintiffs Own Or Control Valid Copyrights In The Works
That VidAngel Exploits

17
18

Certificates of registration issued by the Copyright Office for the copyrighted

19 works identified in the Complaint are included with this filing. Klaus Decl. Exs. A20 RR. The certificates create a presumption of copyright validity and ownership. 17
21 U.S.C. § 410(c); United Fabrics Int’l, Inc. v. C&J Wear, Inc., 630 F.3d 1255, 1257
22 (9th Cir. 2011). It is undisputed that VidAngel currently offers all the works listed
23 in Exhibit A to the complaint and, unless enjoined, will continue to offer these
24 works and other future releases. Ehler Decl. Ex. EE at Tr. 27:19-29:14; 30:3-20;
25 31:6-37:4.
26

2.

VidAngel Violates Plaintiffs’ Exclusive Rights To Reproduce
And Publicly Perform Their Copyrighted Works

27
28

ER594

VidAngel infringes at least two distinct § 106 rights, each of which is
-16PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
16-CV-04109-AB (PLAX)

Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 27 Filed 08/22/16 Page 28 of 45 Page ID #:610

1 sufficient to render VidAngel liable.
2

a.

VidAngel Violates Plaintiffs’ Exclusive Right To
Reproduce Their Works By Making Copies

3
4

Plaintiffs have the exclusive right “to reproduce” their works “in copies.” 17

5 U.S.C. § 106(1). VidAngel admits to making copies of Plaintiffs’ works onto
6 computer system and third-party servers, thereby violating the reproduction right.
7 Ehler Decl. Ex. EE at Tr. 58:1-4. This is infringement. MAI Sys. Corp. v. Peak
8 Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511, 518 (9th Cir. 1993) (transferring digital work “from a
9 permanent storage device to a computer’s RAM [or storage]” infringes the
10 reproduction right); see UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Escape Media Grp., Inc., No. 11
11 CIV. 8407, 2014 WL 5089743, at *20 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2014) (“uploaded copies”
12 of works violate reproduction right).
13
14

b.

VidAngel Violates Plaintiffs’ Exclusive Right To
Publicly Perform Their Copyrighted Works
i.

VidAngel Publicly Performs Plaintiffs’ Works

15
16

Plaintiffs have the exclusive right “to perform the copyrighted work

17 publicly.” 17 U.S.C. § 106(4). VidAngel violates that right under the Transmit
18 Clause. VidAngel “transmits” “performances” “of the work[s].” 17 U.S.C. § 101
19 (definition of public performance and “to transmit”); Aereo, 134 S. Ct. at 2508
20 (Internet streams trigger the Transmit Clause). And VidAngel streams “to the
21 public,” i.e., VidAngel’s thousands of users. Under the Transmit Clause, the fact
22 that VidAngel’s users receive those performances “in separate places” and “at
23 different times” does not change the fact that VidAngel is performing “to the
24 public.” 17 U.S.C. § 101; Aereo, 134 S. Ct. at 2510.
25

VidAngel’s public performance liability follows from Transmit Clause

26 precedent. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Redd Horne, Inc., 749 F.2d 154 (3d
27 Cir. 1984), held that a remote video rental service—wherein patrons selected videos
28 from a store, which transmitted performances from the videos to private in-store
-17-

ER595

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
16-CV-04109-AB (PLAX)

Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 27 Filed 08/22/16 Page 29 of 45 Page ID #:611

1 booths—violated the public performance right. The court held that the store
2 “show[ed] each copy [of a movie] repeatedly to different members of the public,”
3 and that the service was “essentially the same as a movie theatre, with the additional
4 feature of privacy.” Id. at 159.
5

On Command Video Corporation v. Columbia Pictures Industries, 777 F.

6 Supp. 787 (N.D. Cal. 1991), held that a hotel’s “electronic rental” system—in which
7 the hotel rented movies to guests and transmitted performances from the main office
8 to individual hotel rooms—infringed the public performance right. The court held
9 that the “relationship between the transmitter of the performance, On Command,
10 and the audience, hotel guests,” was “a commercial, ‘public’ one regardless of
11 where the viewing takes place.” Id. at 788.
12

Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. v. WTV Systems, Inc., 824 F. Supp. 2d 1003

13 (C.D. Cal. 2011) (“Zediva”), held that the Zediva service—which streamed
14 performances from DVDs and DVD players purportedly assigned to specific
15 users—violated the public performance right. Id. at 1006-07, 1010.
16

And Aereo held that Internet streaming of content captured from over-the-air

17 broadcast signals by thousands of separate antennae—each of which, Aereo
18 claimed, was assigned separately to individual subscribers—infringed. The Court
19 squarely rejected Aereo’s claim that its technical design (using an individual
20 antenna to make a separate transmission path to each user) made the performances
21 private. Aereo, 134 S. Ct. at 2508-09 (noting subscribers would not “care much”
22 about the service’s technical design).
23

Like its predecessors, VidAngel “transmits” (by streaming) performances “to

24 the public” (its users). VidAngel’s liability is clear.

26

VidAngel’s “Buy-Sellback” Scheme Does Not
Transform VidAngel’s Public Performances Into
Private Ones

27

VidAngel argues that it makes private, not public, performances because it

25

ii.

28 transmits streams of movies that users purportedly “buy” from VidAngel. VidAngel
-18-

ER596

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
16-CV-04109-AB (PLAX)

Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 27 Filed 08/22/16 Page 30 of 45 Page ID #:612

1 claims support for this argument in dicta from Aereo, stating that a different analysis
2 might apply where users “receive performances in their capacities as owners or
3 possessors of the underlying works.” Aereo, 134 S. Ct. at 2510. This argument
4 fails.
5

First, the Court’s description of the ownership/possessory relationship that

6 might be relevant is plainly inapplicable to VidAngel. The Court said that the
7 difference between a valet returning cars to their owners and a dealership selling
8 new cars provided a potential analogy to the private/public distinction: “we would
9 not say that the [valet] provides cars ‘to the public’ . . . [w]e would say that a car
10 dealership . . . provide[s] cars to the public, for it sells cars to individuals who lack a
11 pre-existing relationship to the cars.” Id. The Court said Aereo was more like a car
12 dealership because it “transmits to large numbers of paying subscribers who lack
13 any prior relationship to the works.” Id. The same is true of VidAngel, whose users
14 have no “prior relationship” with the works they watch, but instead receive access
15 by paying VidAngel a fee.
16

Second, as Aereo and the other cases discussed above make clear, courts must

17 look at the reality of what the defendant is doing rather than the stratagem it
18 employs to characterize its performances as private. The Court rejected Aereo’s
19 claim that associating each user with an antenna made its streams private
20 performances. The Court explained that this gimmickry did not “render Aereo’s
21 commercial objective any different from that of cable companies,” and did not
22 “significantly alter the viewing experience.” Id. at 2508. It is unfathomable that the
23 courts in Redd Horne, On Command, and Zediva would have deemed the
24 performances private if the defendants had said they were “selling” videos to
25 customers and “buying them back” after each performance.
26

The courts’ focus on substance rather than labels is fatal to VidAngel’s

27 “private performance” argument. VidAngel streams the same copyrighted works to
28 multiple users (“the public”) in a manner that is fundamentally the same as other on-19-

ER597

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
16-CV-04109-AB (PLAX)

Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 27 Filed 08/22/16 Page 31 of 45 Page ID #:613

1 demand services. VidAngel’s own internal documents make it clear that
2

Ehler Decl.

3 Ex. W at 234 (emphasis added). VidAngel’s labeling the transaction a “sale” does
4 not affect the user’s viewing experience. Given that only [

] users have ever

5 requested a copy of the Disc they purportedly “bought”—out of [

of

6 purported “sales”—it is obvious that VidAngel’s users do not treat the service as
7 selling them Discs. Id. Ex. EE at Tr. 189:21-190:8, 229:2-12; see also id. Ex. I at
8 120 (“VidAngel – An Honest Review”9). VidAngel’s business model depends on
9 consumers treating the “buy-sellback” option just like an on-demand streaming
10 rental service, and it encourages this behavior at every turn by repeatedly reminding
11 users to “sellback,” sending email reminders, and even offering “auto-sellback.” Id.
12 at Ex. BB at 336-37. VidAngel’s labeling of the transaction cannot disguise what is
13 really taking place.10
Third, even if VidAngel were right (which it is not) that the Court should look

14

15 at how VidAngel characterizes its service (at least in its legal papers as opposed to
16 its marketing materials), that would not help VidAngel. VidAngel streams
17 performances to paying subscribers from a master copy stored on a server (not a
18 Disc temporarily assigned to the user) in the same way licensed services do—except
19 VidAngel’s master copy is unauthorized and VidAngel has no license to stream.
20
21
22

9

“VidAngel – An Honest Review” is available on YouTube at
23 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KG7xgmDHF40 (last visited Aug. 21, 2016).
10
In analogous contexts, courts have recognized “rentals” couched as “sales”
24
through a sell-buyback structure as gimmicks and held that it is the substance that
25 matters. A & M Records, Inc. v. A.L.W., Ltd., 855 F.2d 368, 370 (7th Cir. 1988)
26 (rejecting buyback scheme under Record Rental Amendment of 1984); Central
Point Software, Inc. v. Global Software & Accessories, Inc., 880 F. Supp. 957, 964
27 (E.D.N.Y. 1995) (rejecting buyback scheme under Computer Software Rental
28 Amendments Act of 1990).

ER598

-20PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
16-CV-04109-AB (PLAX)

Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 27 Filed 08/22/16 Page 32 of 45 Page ID #:614

1 Schumann Decl. ¶¶ 7, 42. In sum, VidAngel’s attempt to characterize its
2 performances as private fails.
3
4
5

3.

None of VidAngel’s Defenses Excuse Its Infringement
a.

The FMA Does Not Excuse VidAngel’s Infringement

The statutory text and Congress’s clear intent establish that the FMA is

6 narrow and does not exempt VidAngel’s infringement of Plaintiffs’ rights.
7

First, as a textual matter, the FMA exempts only (1) “the making

8 imperceptible” and (2) “the creation or provision of a computer program or other
9 technology that enables such making imperceptible.” 17 U.S.C. § 110(11). Every
10 other word in the FMA narrows the circumstances in which these two exemptions to
11 § 106 apply. The savings clause, moreover, clarifies the FMA shall not be
12 “construed to imply further rights under” § 106. Id. § 110 (final sentence).
13

VidAngel argues that a business that offers filtering software has statutory

14 authorization to publicly perform Plaintiffs’ works because the FMA permits
15 filtering “during a performance . . . transmitted to that household for private home
16 viewing.” Dkt. 11 (Counter-Complaint) ¶ 65 (quoting 17 U.S.C. § 110(11)
17 (omissions in original)). The plain text of the FMA defies this reading. VidAngel’s
18 reading ignores the requirement that the performance be from an “authorized copy.”
19 17 U.S.C. § 110(11). If Congress wanted to grant filtering businesses a total
20 exemption from copyright infringement—a radical notion with no historical
21 support—it would have said that directly. The fact that the transmission must come
22 from an “authorized copy” of the copyrighted work makes clear that Congress did
23 not provide a blanket exemption to the reproduction or public performance right. Id.
24 VidAngel’s answer to this is that it purchases authorized copies of Plaintiffs’ movies
25 on Discs. But VidAngel does not stream from those Discs (and even if it did, it
26 would still be publicly performing them without the necessary license, as discussed
27 above). VidAngel does not stream from an “authorized copy;” it streams from a
28

ER599

-21PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
16-CV-04109-AB (PLAX)

Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 27 Filed 08/22/16 Page 33 of 45 Page ID #:615

ER600

Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 27 Filed 08/22/16 Page 34 of 45 Page ID #:616

i.

1
2
3

VidAngel’s Wholesale Copying And Publicly
Performing Plaintiffs’ Works Are Commercial And
Non-Transformative

The first factor asks whether VidAngel’s use is commercial and

4 transformative. Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Publ’g, 512 F.3d 522, 530 (9th Cir.
5 2008).
6

VidAngel’s use of Plaintiffs’ works obviously is commercial: VidAngel

7 copies and publicly performs Plaintiffs’ works to profit in its business. Harper &
8 Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539, 562 (1985). VidAngel’s
9 commercial use weighs against fair use because VidAngel “stands to profit from
10 exploitation of the copyrighted material without paying the customary price.”
11 Leadsinger, 512 F.3d at 530 (quotations omitted).
12

VidAngel’s commercial use is not transformative. A transformative use adds

13 “something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first
14 [work] with new expression, meaning or message.” Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music,
15 Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 579 (1994). VidAngel’s wholesale copying of Plaintiffs’ works
16 “in their entirety” to its computer system adds nothing new to those works and is not
17 transformative. Worldwide Church of God v. Philadelphia Church of God, Inc., 227
18 F.3d 1110, 1117 (9th Cir. 2000).
19

VidAngel’s public performance of those works—in which VidAngel makes

20 the entire copied work available to users and allows them to selectively filter out
21 small portions of Plaintiffs’ works— also is not transformative. Removing portions
22 of the works obviously does not add anything new to them. VidAngel instead is
23 “simply rebroadcast[ing] for entertainment purposes [works] that Plaintiffs
24 rightfully own”—which is not transformative. Elvis Presley Enters., Inc. v.
25 Passport Video, 349 F.3d 622, 628-29 (9th Cir. 2003), overruled on other grounds
26 as recognized in Seltzer v. Green Day, Inc., 725 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2013); see
27 Monge v. Maya Magazines, Inc., 688 F.3d 1164, 1174 (9th Cir. 2012) (“neither
28 minor cropping nor the inclusion of headlines or captions transformed the
-23-

ER601

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
16-CV-04109-AB (PLAX)

Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 27 Filed 08/22/16 Page 35 of 45 Page ID #:617

1 copyrighted [photographs]”); Worldwide Church of God, 227 F.3d at 1117 (“where
2 the use is for the same intrinsic purpose as the copyright holder’s, such use seriously
3 weakens a claimed fair use”) (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted); cf.
4 Authors Guild. v. Google, Inc., 804 F.3d 202, 225 (2d Cir. 2015) (while Google
5 Books’ display of “snippets” of text was held to be transformative, court expressly
6 stated that “[i]f Plaintiffs’ claim were based on Google’s converting their books into
7 a digitized form and making that digitized version accessible to the public, their
8 claim would be strong”).
9

The court in Clean Flicks of Colo. v. LLC v. Soderbergh, 433 F. Supp. 2d

10 1236 (D. Colo. 2006), considered and rejected the same fair use defense that
11 VidAngel makes. The defendants there mechanically edited movies to remove
12 content and therefore had no FMA defense. The court held that the defendants also
13 had no fair use defense. The court emphasized that the defendants (1) added
14 nothing to the movies, (2) only removed small amounts of content, and (3) did so for
15 commercial gain. Id. at 1241. All of those findings apply to VidAngel.
ii.

16
17

Plaintiffs’ Copyrighted Works Are Highly Creative

Plaintiffs’ works are highly creative, and “the nature of the copyrighted work”

18 favors Plaintiffs. Campbell, 510 U.S. at 586; Elvis Presley Enters., 349 F.3d at 629
19 (motion pictures “are creative in nature and thus fit squarely within the core of
20 copyright protection”).
21
22
23

iii.

VidAngel Copies The Entirety Of Plaintiffs’ Works
And Publicly Performs Substantially The Entirety
Of Them

VidAngel copies Plaintiffs’ works in their entirety. Ehler Decl. Ex. EE at Tr.

24 112:19-113:2. This weighs strongly against fair use. See Monge, 688 F.3d at 1180
25 (no fair use where defendant copied photographs in their entirety). VidAngel’s
26 public performances omit some portions of each work. See Ehler Decl. Ex. Q
27 (removing “nudity/graphic violence/f-bomb . . . took out 14min” from Deadpool).
28 But VidAngel always performs the “heart” of the works, and this factor weighs
-24-

ER602

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
16-CV-04109-AB (PLAX)

Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 27 Filed 08/22/16 Page 36 of 45 Page ID #:618

1 against VidAngel. See Campbell, 510 U.S. at 586; Elvis Presley Enters., 349 F.3d
2 at 630; L.A. News Serv. v. Tullo, 973 F.2d 791, 798 (9th Cir. 1992).
3

iv.

VidAngel’s Service Undermines Existing And
Potential Markets For Plaintiffs’ Works

4
5

The fourth factor considers current market harm and ‘“whether unrestricted

6 and widespread conduct of the sort engaged in by the defendant . . . would result in a
7 substantially adverse impact on the potential market’ for the original.” Campbell,
8 510 U.S. at 590 (citations omitted). Where, as here, the defendant uses the works
9 “for commercial gain, the likelihood of market harm may be presumed.”
10 Leadsinger, 512 F.3d at 531-32 (quotations omitted); see Campbell, 510 U.S. at 591
11 (presumption of market harm “makes common sense” in cases involving “copying
12 of the original in its entirety for commercial purposes”) (quotation marks and
13 alterations omitted). To rebut this presumption, VidAngel must “bring forward
14 favorable evidence about relevant markets.” Arista Records LLC v. Myxer, Inc., No.
15 CV 08-03935 GAF, 2011 WL 11660773, at *43 (C.D. Cal. 2011) (quoting Dr. Seuss
16 Enters., L.P. v. Penguin Books, USA, Inc., 109 F.3d 1394, 1403 (9th Cir. 1997)).
17 This VidAngel cannot do.
18

VidAngel plainly undermines existing and developing markets for Plaintiffs’

19 works. VidAngel’s own marketing materials and strategy compare it to legitimate
20 on-demand streaming services such as iTunes, Google Play, Amazon Video, and
21 Netflix. Ehler Decl. Exs. A, B. Further, as explained by the Senior Vice President,
22 Digital Distribution at Fox, VidAngel undercuts the market for Plaintiffs’ works in a
23 number of ways. Cittadine Decl. ¶¶ 16-22; 26-34. For example when VidAngel
24 released Star Wars: The Force Awakens on the same day it was released to Disc and
25 for digital download, VidAngel was “competing directly with these other exclusive
26 viewing options and preempting legitimate on-demand streaming services” which
27 did not yet have rights to stream that title. Id. ¶ 16. Likewise, “[b]y offering
28 consumers on-demand streaming at a lower price —which VidAngel can offer only
-25-

ER603

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
16-CV-04109-AB (PLAX)

Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 27 Filed 08/22/16 Page 37 of 45 Page ID #:619

1 because it misappropriates Fox’s content—VidAngel threatens the business of all of
2 [Fox’s licensees] who have negotiated legal, authorized licenses [with Fox and other
3 Plaintiffs] for those rights.” Id. ¶ 20. Many VidAngel customers are using the
4 service because of its price as compared to authorized services—a differential that
5 exists only because VidAngel does not pay for the rights it exploits. Ehler Decl. Ex.
6 I (examples).
7

In sum, fair use is not a defense to VidAngel’s blatant infringement.
c.

8

The First Sale Doctrine Does Not Authorize VidAngel’s
Copying or Streaming

9
VidAngel claims that Plaintiffs’ attempt to enforce their reproduction and

10

11 public performance rights violates the first sale doctrine, see 17 U.S.C. § 109(a),13
12 because VidAngel buys Discs and resells them via its “buy-sellback” model. Dkt.
13 11 (Counter-Complaint) ¶¶ 53-59. Even if VidAngel were actually selling Discs
14 (which it is not), the argument would be a red herring. The first sale doctrine
15 applies only to Plaintiffs’ right of distribution, which is not at issue here. See Red
16 Baron-Franklin Park, Inc. v. Taito Corp., 883 F.2d 275, 280-81 (4th Cir. 1989)
17 (“the first sale doctrine has no application to the rights of the owner of a copyright
18 guaranteed by § 106, except the right of distribution”); Capitol Records, LLC v.
19 ReDigi Inc., 934 F. Supp. 2d 640, 655 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (“[T]he first sale defense
20 does not apply to ReDigi’s infringement of those [reproduction] rights.”); Peker v.
21 Masters Collection, 96 F. Supp. 2d 216,221 (E.D.N.Y. 2000) (“no defense that
22 [defendant] used a lawfully acquired object to achieve its unlawful goal of
23 copying”).
24
25
13

“Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3), the owner of a particular copy
. . . lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is
27 entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of
28 the possession of that copy . . . .” 17 U.S.C. § 109(a) (emphasis added).
-2626

ER604

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
16-CV-04109-AB (PLAX)

Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 27 Filed 08/22/16 Page 38 of 45 Page ID #:620

1 II.

PLAINTIFFS WILL SUFFER IRREPARABLE HARM ABSENT AN
INJUNCTION

2
3

A court may find that a copyright owner’s harm is likely “irreparable” for

4 many reasons, including that a particular loss is “difficult to replace,” “difficult to
5 measure,” or of a kind “that one should not be expected to suffer.” Salinger v.
6 Colting, 607 F.3d 68, 81 (2d Cir. 2010). VidAngel’s illegal conduct puts Plaintiffs
7 at risk of suffering imminent, irreparable harms; VidAngel’s “delay” defense does
8 not change this fact.
9

A.

VidAngel’s Unauthorized Service Causes Immediate And
Irreparable Harms

10
11

First, VidAngel interferes with Plaintiffs’ basic right to control how, when

12 and through which channels consumers can view their copyrighted works. “As the
13 copyright holders, Plaintiffs have the exclusive right to decide when, where, to
14 whom, and for how much they will authorize transmission of their Copyrighted
15 Works to the public.” Zediva, 824 F. Supp. 2d at 1012 (citation omitted). Where
16 defendants operate an “infringing service without the normal licensing restrictions
17 imposed by Plaintiffs, [it] interfere[s] with Plaintiffs’ ability to control the use and
18 transmission of their Copyrighted works, thereby, causing irreparable injury.” Id. at
19 1012 (citation omitted). Plaintiffs’ exclusive rights under copyright are critical to
20 providing Plaintiffs the opportunity to earn a return on their substantial
21 investments—often tens of millions of dollars for a major motion picture—in
22 creating content. Cittadine Decl. ¶¶ 7-8. This harm is ongoing and worsening as
23 VidAngel continues to add Plaintiffs’ works and grow its user base. Id. ¶ 34.
24

Plaintiffs exercise their rights through agreements with authorized

25 distributors. Some licenses grant the licensee an exclusive time window for
26 performing a title. Id. ¶ 15. The price for such a license is based, in part, on the
27 promise and scope of exclusivity. Id. VidAngel operates without any license and
28 performs Plaintiffs’ works during negotiated exclusivity periods. As of this filing,
-27-

ER605

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
16-CV-04109-AB (PLAX)

Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 27 Filed 08/22/16 Page 39 of 45 Page ID #:621

1 VidAngel offers (at least) two of Plaintiffs’ works—The Martian and Brooklyn—
2 during periods these works are exclusive to an authorized licensee, HBO. Id. ¶ 30.
3 As noted, VidAngel offered Star Wars: The Force Awakens when no service had
4 rights to distribute it for on-demand streaming. Id. ¶ 16; Ehler Decl. Ex. J.
5 VidAngel flaunts its interference with exclusive windows as a competitive
6 advantage over authorized services by expressly promoting titles that are available
7 on VidAngel but “NOT on Netflix.” Ehler Decl. Ex. A at 13-15, 23-38. VidAngel
8 thus interferes with Plaintiffs’ exercise of their exclusive rights and frustrates
9 Plaintiffs’ ability to negotiate for similar rights in the future. Cittadine Decl. ¶¶ 17,
10 36.
11

Second, VidAngel threatens harm to Plaintiffs’ relationships and goodwill

12 with authorized distributors by undermining their ability to provide licensed
13 offerings. See Ticketmaster L.L.C. v. RMG Techs., Inc., 507 F. Supp. 2d 1096, 1115
14 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (irreparable harm includes “damage to goodwill”). VidAngel
15 poses a threat to the businesses of Plaintiffs’ legitimate licensees and, in turn, to
16 Plaintiffs’ relationships with them and the goodwill Plaintiffs have worked to create.
17 Cittadine Decl. ¶¶ 18-22. VidAngel’s users often compare the service to Plaintiffs’
18 licensees, commenting that they prefer VidAngel because it provides inexpensive
19 access to Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works. See Ehler Decl. Ex. I (examples).
20 Licensees complain to Plaintiffs that their business suffers from competition with
21 unlicensed services that offer low-cost or free content because they do not obtain
22 licenses. Cittadine Decl. ¶ 19. VidAngel’s unrestrained conduct thus threatens the
23 legitimate online distribution market. Id. ¶¶ 19, 22; see WPIX, Inc. v. ivi, Inc., 691
24 F.3d 275, 286 (2d Cir. 2012) (holding that unrestrained unauthorized Internet
25 retransmissions of broadcast programming “would encourage” other services to
26 follow suit, diminish plaintiffs’ negotiating position, adversely affect “quantity and
27 quality of efforts put into creating” new works, and “drastically change the industry,
28 to plaintiffs’ detriment”).

ER606

-28PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
16-CV-04109-AB (PLAX)

Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 27 Filed 08/22/16 Page 40 of 45 Page ID #:622

1

Third, VidAngel threatens harm to Plaintiffs’ ability to secure and protect

2 their content in the online environment. Online distribution carries with it a
3 heightened risk of piracy because the Internet facilitates the ability to exploit
4 copyrighted content on a mass scale. Cittadine Decl. ¶ 24. Plaintiffs require
5 licensees to employ specified security measures to prevent piracy. Id.¶ 25. Because
6 VidAngel streams Plaintiffs’ works without negotiating a license, Plaintiffs are
7 deprived of their right to impose those terms on VidAngel. Id. VidAngel
8 jeopardizes Plaintiffs’ content and harms Plaintiffs’ relationships with licensees who
9 are required to abide by security requirements to which VidAngel is not bound. Id.
10

Fourth, VidAngel threatens harm to the overall development of the on-

11 demand streaming market by the provision of inferior user-viewing experiences.
12 See Zediva, 842 F. Supp. 2d at 1014 (Zediva “threatens the development of a
13 successful and lawful video on demand market by offering a sub-optimal customer
14 experience and, thus, tarnishing customers’ perception of video on demand as an
15 attractive option for viewing Plaintiffs’ Copyrighted Works.”). Plaintiffs require
16 their licensees to have quality controls, which maintain predictable standards and
17 allow customers to view Plaintiffs’ movies under consistently positive conditions.
18 Cittadine Decl. ¶ 27. VidAngel threatens these efforts and provides an inferior user19 viewing experience that tarnishes Plaintiffs’ brands because it is not bound to
20 comply with Plaintiffs’ quality controls. Id. This possibility is not merely
21 theoretical: VidAngel’s social media pages contain customer complaints about the
22 service’s poor streaming quality. Ehler Decl. L (attaching numerous examples).
23

VidAngel also threatens the lawful market by confusing consumers that

24 VidAngel is engaged in lawful conduct. See Zediva, 824 F. Supp. 2d at 1013
25 (finding that the Zediva service threatened “to create incorrect but lasting
26 impressions with consumers about what constitute[d] lawful video on demand
27 exploitation” of copyrighted works). VidAngel publicly justifies its unlicensed
28

ER607

-29PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
16-CV-04109-AB (PLAX)

Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 27 Filed 08/22/16 Page 41 of 45 Page ID #:623

1 activities as “legal” under the FMA. Ehler Decl. Ex. M. But VidAngel’s service is
2 not legal, and it creates incorrect expectations about the value of Plaintiffs’ content.
3

B.

Plaintiffs’ Motion Is Timely, And VidAngel’s Assertions of
“Delay” Do Not Negate Irreparable Harm

4
5

VidAngel has asserted that Plaintiffs face no irreparable harm because they

6 did not sue as soon as they learned of VidAngel when they received Mr. Quinto’s
7 letters in July 2015. Plaintiffs are not required to act immediately to sue, or to seek
8 to enjoin, every potential infringer. See Petrella, 134 S. Ct. at 1976 (“Even if an
9 infringement is harmful, the harm may be too small to justify the cost of
10 litigation.”). A rule that required a copyright holder to pursue every possible
11 threat—no matter how nascent—would generate a rash of litigation and motion
12 practice, which would not serve the Courts, the parties, or the public interest. See
13 Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Paperback Software Int’l, 740 F. Supp. 37, 82 (D. Mass. 1990)
14 (“Prudent business judgment, Rule 11, and basic common sense required [the
15 plaintiff] first to ascertain that the threat to its intellectual property interest was
16 serious, and that its legal position was sound, before filing suit.”) (internal
17 quotations omitted). Courts are “loath to withhold relief” solely on the ground that a
18 party delayed seeking an injunction. Arc of Cal. v. Douglas, 757 F.3d 975, 990 (9th
19 Cir. 2014) (citing Lydo Enters., Inc. v. City of Las Vegas, 745 F.2d 1211, 1214 (9th
20 Cir. 1984)).
21

Plaintiffs filed this suit when VidAngel’s conduct was sufficiently egregious

22 to require litigation and when it was apparent VidAngel would continue operating.
23 See Arc of Cal., 757 F.3d at 991 (“The significance of such a prudent delay in
24 determining irreparable harm may become so small as to disappear.”). To require
25 Plaintiffs to “sue soon, or forever hold [their] peace” would force Plaintiffs to mount
26 a federal case to stop services that might never get off the ground—which is often
27 the case. Petrella, 134 S. Ct. at 1976 (describing “seemingly innocuous
28 infringements”). Plaintiffs filed suit after they had conducted their investigation and
-30-

ER608

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
16-CV-04109-AB (PLAX)

Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 27 Filed 08/22/16 Page 42 of 45 Page ID #:624

1 analysis, and when it was clear that litigation was necessary to stop VidAngel’s
2 illegal conduct.
3

Moreover, each new title that VidAngel offers gives rise to a new

4 infringement claim and inflicts new immediate, irreparable harm.14 Id. at 1969
5 (“[e]ach wrong gives rise to a discrete ‘claim’ that ‘accrue[s]’ at the time the wrong
6 occurs”). VidAngel has added more and more of Plaintiffs’ titles in recent months
7 and promises to continue to do so, especially with Plaintiffs’ most popular releases.
8 Ehler Decl. Exs. N (examples of titles recently added); EE at Tr. 32:9-37:4, R
9 (VidAngel offers new movies that reach more than

] in domestic sales).

The harm that VidAngel causes is not over and done with, but continuing and

10

11 growing. The time a party takes initially in seeking judicial protection “is not
12 particularly probative in the context of ongoing, worsening injuries.” Arc of Cal.,
13 757 F.3d at 990-91 (citations omitted). VidAngel’s growth, increased marketing
14 and more brazen conduct have increased the immediacy and magnitude of the harm
15 to Plaintiffs, further justifying injunctive relief. See id.
16 III.

THE BALANCE OF HARDSHIPS TIPS DECISIVELY FOR
PLAINTIFFS

17
The threat of harm to Plaintiffs, as demonstrated above, is substantial. In

18

19 contrast, VidAngel “cannot complain of the harm that will befall it when properly
20 forced to desist from its infringing activities.” Triad Sys. Corp. v. Se. Express Co.,
21 64 F.3d 1330, 1338 (9th Cir. 1995), superseded on other grounds by 17 U.S.C.
22 § 117(c); see Cadence Design Sys., Inc. v. Avant! Corp., 125 F.3d 824, 830 (9th Cir.
23 1997) (“Where the only hardship that the defendant will suffer is lost profits from an
24
25

14

For example, on July 20, 2016, VidAngel made Batman v. Superman: Dawn of
26 Justice (Ultimate Edition) available, when that title was not yet available to
legitimate on-demand streaming services. See Ehler Decl. Ex. N at 155. On August
27 4, VidAngel offered Keanu, when that title was not yet available to legitimate on28 demand services. See id. at 157.
-31-

ER609

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
16-CV-04109-AB (PLAX)

Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 27 Filed 08/22/16 Page 43 of 45 Page ID #:625

1 activity which has been shown likely to be infringing, such an argument in defense
2 merits little equitable consideration”) (quotations and citations omitted); Apple Inc.
3 v. Psystar Corp., 673 F. Supp. 2d 943, 950 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (“Since [small start-up
4 defendant] does not (and cannot) claim any legitimate hardships as a result of being
5 enjoined from committing unlawful activities, and Apple would suffer irreparable
6 and immeasurable harms if an injunction were not issued, this factor weighs
7 strongly in favor of Apple’s motion.”).
8

VidAngel does not suffer a legitimate hardship if it is enjoined because the

9 very core of its business involves circumvention and infringement. The fact that
10 VidAngel’s litigation counsel sent letters to a number of general counsel makes
11 clear that VidAngel knew from the outset it was on thin ice. Nonetheless, VidAngel
12 proceeded at its peril.
13 IV.

A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

14

Upholding copyright protection is in the public interest. See Eldred v.

15 Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186, 212 n.18 (2002) (“[t]he economic philosophy behind the
16 [Copyright] [C]lause . . . is the conviction that encouragement of individual effort by
17 personal gain is the best way to advance public welfare through the talents of
18 authors and inventors”) (citation omitted); Kelly v. Primco Mgmt., Inc., No. CV-1419 07263 BRO, 2015 WL 10990368 at *16 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2015) (“[I]t is virtually
20 axiomatic that the public interest can only be served by upholding copyright
21 protections . . . .”); Realnetworks, Inc., 641 F. Supp. 2d at 943 (“By making it a
22 DMCA violation to distribute products that enable consumers to override copyright
23 owner preferences against unauthorized copying, Congress determined that the
24 public interest is best served by outlawing such products.”).
25

VidAngel’s circumvention violations and infringements undermine

26 Congress’s purposes in the DMCA and Copyright Act. Congress believed that
27 content owners must have exclusive rights, as set forth in § 106, and also the ability
28 to safeguard access to their works, in order to be able to earn returns on their (often
-32-

ER610

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
16-CV-04109-AB (PLAX)

Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 27 Filed 08/22/16 Page 44 of 45 Page ID #:626

1 substantial) investments. VidAngel’s violation of Plaintiffs’ rights flouts Congress’s
2 goals and harms Plaintiffs. An injunction serves the public interest in upholding the
3 law.
4 V.

MINIMAL SECURITY SHOULD BE REQUIRED

5

The required security need not be substantial. See Zediva, 824 F. Supp. 2d at

6 1015 (requiring $50,000 bond). Any hardship VidAngel faces results from its
7 voluntary decision to build a business around violating Plaintiffs’ rights. Plaintiffs
8 respectfully submit that security in the amount of $50,000 is appropriate.
9

CONCLUSION

10

The Court should grant Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.

11
12
13

DATED: August 22, 2016

MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP

14
15
16
17

By:

/s/ Kelly M. Klaus
KELLY M. KLAUS
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ER611

-33PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
16-CV-04109-AB (PLAX)

Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 27 Filed 08/22/16 Page 45 of 45 Page ID #:627

1
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on August 22, 2016, I authorized the electronic filing of

3 the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will
4 send e-mail notification of such filing to all registered parties. I certify under
5 penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing
6 is true and correct.
7
8 DATED: August 22, 2016

MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP

9
10
11

By:

/s/ Kelly M. Klaus
Kelly M. Klaus

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ER612

-34PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
16-CV-04109-AB (PLAX)

Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 1 Filed 06/09/16 Page 1 of 20 Page ID #:1

1

7

GLENN D. POMERANTZ (SBN 112503)
[e-mail]
KELLY M. KLAUS (SBN 161091)
[e-mail]
ROSE LEDA EHLER (SBN 296523)
[e-mail]
ALLYSON BENNETT (SBN 302090)
[e-mail]
MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
355 South Grand Avenue, Thirty-Fifth Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

8

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

2
3
4
5
6

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

WESTERN DIVISION

12

15

DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC.;
LUCASFILM LTD. LLC; TWENTIETH
CENTURY FOX FILM
CORPORATION; and WARNER
BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC.,

16

Plaintiffs,

13
14

vs.

17
18

CASE NO.
COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT
INFRINGEMENT AND
VIOLATION OF DIGITAL
MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

VIDANGEL, INC.,

19

Defendant.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ER613

COMPLAINT

Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 1 Filed 06/09/16 Page 2 of 20 Page ID #:2

1

Plaintiffs Disney Enterprises, Inc. (“Disney”), Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC

2

(“Lucasfilm”), Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation (“Fox”), and Warner Bros.

3

Entertainment Inc. (“Warner Bros.”) (“Plaintiffs”), through their undersigned

4

counsel, hereby bring this Complaint against VidAngel, Inc. (“Defendant” or

5

“VidAngel”) for infringing Plaintiffs’ exclusive rights under the Copyright Act (17

6

U.S.C. § 101 et seq.) and for violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act

7

(§ 1201 et seq.) (“DMCA”). This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to

8

28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a), and 17 U.S.C. §§ 501(b), 1203(a). Plaintiffs allege, on

9

personal knowledge as to themselves and information and belief as to others, as

10

follows:

11
12

INTRODUCTION
1.

VidAngel operates a video-on-demand (“VOD”) service that streams

13 popular movies and television shows. VidAngel charges users for watching that
14 content but has no authorization and pays nothing for the rights it exploits. At its
15 core, VidAngel is no different from many other unlawful online services. Plaintiffs
16 bring this action to stop VidAngel’s infringement of their rights.
17

2.

VidAngel’s VOD service looks and feels very similar to licensed

18 services such as Netflix, Hulu, and iTunes. Users can search for copyrighted motion
19 picture content by popularity, genre or categories (e.g., “New Releases”):
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ER614

-1-

COMPLAINT

Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 1 Filed 06/09/16 Page 3 of 20 Page ID #:3

1

And, like these other services, VidAngel streams movies via computer, mobile

2

device (e.g., a smartphone, iPad, or tablet), or internet-connected television (e.g.,

3

through Apple TV, Chromecast or Roku).

4

3.

But there is a fundamental difference between VidAngel and licensed

5 VOD services: VidAngel does not have permission to copy Plaintiffs’ movies and
6 television shows or to stream them to VidAngel’s users. Instead, VidAngel appears
7 to circumvent the technological protection measures on DVDs and Blu-ray discs to
8 create unauthorized copies and then uses those copies to stream Plaintiffs’ works to
9 the public without authorization.
10

4.

By running this service without a license, VidAngel blatantly violates

11 the Copyright Act and confers on itself unfair and unlawful advantages vis-à-vis
12 licensed services in the VOD marketplace. First, by cutting out payments to
13 copyright owners, VidAngel is able to offer prices that undercut licensed services
14 and charge only $1 for daily access to movies in standard definition format.
15 VidAngel emphatically touts its below-market pricing:
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

5.

Second, because VidAngel absolves itself of having to abide by

27 contractual restrictions, VidAngel offers content that is not available on licensed
28 VOD services. For example, VidAngel makes many newly released titles available

ER615

-2-

COMPLAINT

Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 1 Filed 06/09/16 Page 4 of 20 Page ID #:4

1 for streaming well before they are available via licensed VOD services. Recently,
2 VidAngel exploited this competitive advantage to offer Star Wars: The Force
3 Awakens for $1 a day at a time when lawful VOD services did not yet have the right
4 to offer that work for single-day access at all:
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 VidAngel also flaunts this unfair competitive advantage by expressly promoting a
14 selection of titles that are available on VidAngel but “Not Available on Netflix”:
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

6.

VidAngel publicly defends its unlicensed activities with legally and

27 factually false claims. For example, VidAngel insists that it has the right to bypass
28 copyright owner consent because VidAngel says it is “selling,” not renting, movies

ER616

-3-

COMPLAINT

Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 1 Filed 06/09/16 Page 5 of 20 Page ID #:5

1 to its users. It does not matter whether VidAngel sells or rents movies. In either
2 case, VidAngel would need copyright owner consent to circumvent access controls
3 on protected discs, make copies of that content, and stream performances of the
4 content to the public. VidAngel does not have consent to do any of these things.
5 And, VidAngel is not “selling” movies. VidAngel is simply providing an
6 unauthorized dollar-a-day VOD rental service.
7

7.

VidAngel also asserts that the Family Movie Act of 2005 (“FMA”)

8 justifies its unlicensed activities because VidAngel offers its users the ability to skip
9 and mute words and images that VidAngel thinks its users may find objectionable.
10 The FMA does not justify VidAngel’s violation of Plaintiffs’ rights. The FMA
11 narrowly permits technology that “mak[es] imperceptible,” at a home user’s
12 direction, limited portions of content during playback “from an authorized copy” of a
13 motion picture. 17 U.S.C. § 110(11). Nothing in the FMA gives VidAngel the right
14 to copy or publicly perform Plaintiffs’ copyrighted content without authorization.
15 Nor does the FMA give VidAngel the right to circumvent the technological
16 protection measures on DVDs and Blu-ray discs that safeguard access to Plaintiffs’
17 content. This Complaint does not challenge the FMA or businesses acting lawfully
18 under it. This Complaint does challenge VidAngel’s operation of a business that
19 goes far beyond conduct allowed under the FMA and that is based on the unlawful
20 exploitation of Plaintiffs’ rights.
21
22

THE PARTIES
8.

Plaintiff Disney Enterprises, Inc. is a corporation duly incorporated

23 under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business in
24 Burbank, California. Disney owns and controls the copyrights and exclusive rights
25 in the content that it or its affiliates produce or distribute (“Disney’s Copyrighted
26 Works”).
27

9.

Disney has obtained Certificates of Copyright Registration for the

28 Copyrighted Works. The attached Exhibit A includes several of Disney’s

ER617

-4-

COMPLAINT

Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 1 Filed 06/09/16 Page 6 of 20 Page ID #:6

1 Copyrighted Works, along with their registration numbers, that VidAngel has
2 infringed and continues to infringe.
3

10.

Plaintiff Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC is a limited liability corporation duly

4 incorporated under the laws of the State of California with its principal place of
5 business in San Francisco, California. Lucasfilm owns and controls the copyrights
6 and exclusive rights in the content that it or its affiliates produce or distribute
7 (“Lucasfilm’s Copyrighted Works”).
8

11.

Lucasfilm has obtained Certificates of Copyright Registration for the

9 Copyrighted Works. Exhibit A includes several of Lucasfilm’s Copyrighted Works,
10 along with their registration numbers, that VidAngel has infringed and continues to
11 infringe.
12

12.

Plaintiff Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation is a corporation duly

13 incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of
14 business in Los Angeles, California. Fox owns and controls the copyrights and
15 exclusive rights in the content that it or its affiliates produce or distribute (“Fox’s
16 Copyrighted Works”).
17

13.

Fox has obtained Certificates of Copyright Registration for the

18 Copyrighted Works. Exhibit A includes several of Fox’s Copyrighted Works, along
19 with their registration numbers, that VidAngel has infringed and continues to
20 infringe.
21

14.

Plaintiff Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. is a corporation duly

22 incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of
23 business in Burbank, California. Warner Bros. owns and controls the copyrights and
24 exclusive rights in the content that it or its affiliates produce or distribute (“Warner
25 Bros.’ Copyrighted Works”).
26

15.

Warner Bros. has obtained Certificates of Copyright Registration for the

27 Copyrighted Works. Exhibit A includes several of Warner Bros.’ Copyrighted
28

ER618

-5-

COMPLAINT

Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 1 Filed 06/09/16 Page 7 of 20 Page ID #:7

1 Works, along with their registration numbers, that VidAngel has infringed and
2 continues to infringe.
3

16.

Defendant VidAngel, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal

4 place of business at 249 N. University Ave. Provo, Utah 84601. VidAngel also has
5 offices in California.
6

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

7

17.

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this Complaint pursuant

8 to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a), and 17 U.S.C. §§ 501(b), 1203(a).
9

18.

Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)

10 1400(a).
11
12

BACKGROUND FACTS
Plaintiffs and Their Copyrighted Works

13

19.

Plaintiffs or their affiliates produce or distribute some of the most

14 popular and critically acclaimed motion pictures and television shows in the world.
15

20.

For Disney, this copyrighted content includes motion pictures produced

16 by Walt Disney Pictures, Pixar and Marvel Studios, LLC. Disney or its affiliates
17 own and distribute television programming developed by or for ABC as well as other
18 networks, including, the Disney Channels, Free Form, and ESPN.
19

21.

For Lucasfilm, this copyrighted content includes the motion pictures and

20 television programming it has produced.
21

22.

For Fox, this copyrighted content includes motion pictures produced by

22 Twentieth Century Fox and Fox 2000, Fox Searchlight Pictures, and Twentieth
23 Century Fox Animation. Fox or its affiliates own and distribute television
24 programming developed by Twentieth Century Fox Television and Fox21 Television
25 Studios for broadcast networks including FOX, FX, ABC, CBS, NBC and TBS, as
26 well as for cable networks, including, FX, Showtime, and A&E.
27

23.

For Warner Bros., this copyrighted content includes motion pictures

28 produced by Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. and its predecessors, its production

ER619

-6-

COMPLAINT

Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 1 Filed 06/09/16 Page 8 of 20 Page ID #:8

1 partners, and its affiliates. Warner Bros. or its affiliates produce or distribute
2 television programming developed by, among others, Warner Bros. Television, for
3 broadcast networks including ABC, CBS, NBC, and The CW, as well as for cable
4 networks and VOD providers such as Netflix.
5

24.

Plaintiffs have produced and distribute some of the most popular

6 copyrighted works today and historically.
7

a. Some of Disney’s well-known feature-length motion pictures include

8

Inside Out (2015), Big Hero 6 (2014), Frozen (2013), Toy Story 3 (2010),

9

Up (2009), WALL-E (2008), Finding Nemo (2003), Monsters, Inc. (2001),

10

The Lion King (1994), Aladdin (1992) and Beauty and the Beast (1991).

11

b. Some of Lucasfilm’s well-known feature-length motion pictures include

12

Star Wars: The Force Awakens (2015), Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of

13

the Crystal Skull (2008), Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith

14

(2005), Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Cones (2002), Star Wars:

15

Episode I – The Phantom Menace (1999) and Indiana Jones and the Last

16

Crusade (1989).

17

c. Some of Fox’s well-known feature-length motion pictures include The

18

Martian (2015), The Revenant (2015), The Peanuts Movie (2015), Life of

19

Pi (2013), Avatar (2009), Mrs. Doubtfire (2003), Ice Age (2002),

20

Independence Day (2000) and Home Alone (1990).

21

d. Some of Warner Bros.’ well-known feature-length motion pictures

22

include San Andreas (2015), The Intern (2015), Gravity (2013), Man of

23

Steel (2013), ARGO (2012), The Dark Knight (2008), Harry Potter and

24

the Sorcerer’s Stone (2001) and The Iron Giant (1999).

25

VidAngel currently offers each of these movies, as well as television shows and

26

numerous other of Plaintiffs’ Copyrighted Works, for VOD streaming.

27
28

ER620

-7-

COMPLAINT

Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 1 Filed 06/09/16 Page 9 of 20 Page ID #:9

1

25.

Plaintiffs have invested (and continue to invest) substantial resources

2 and effort each year to develop, produce, distribute and publicly perform their
3 Copyrighted Works.
4

26.

Plaintiffs own and have the exclusive U.S. rights (among others) to

5 reproduce and publicly perform their Copyrighted Works, including by means of
6 streaming those works over the internet to the public.
7

27.

Plaintiffs distribute and publicly perform their Copyrighted Works in

8 various formats and through multiple distribution channels, including: for exhibition
9 in theaters; through television broadcasts; through cable and direct-to-home satellite
10 services (including basic, premium, “pay-per-view” and VOD services); and through
11 authorized, licensed internet VOD services such as Netflix, Hulu, iTunes, Google
12 Play, Amazon Video and VUDU. Plaintiffs also distribute their works to the home
13 viewing market, including on DVDs and Blu-ray discs.
14

28.

Disney also owns and operates Disney Movies Anywhere, Disney’s

15 platform that enables consumers to access Disney, Marvel, Pixar and Lucasfilm titles
16 across digital video platforms and devices using their accounts with participating
17 licensed internet video services.
18

29.

Plaintiffs have not provided authorization, permission or consent to

19 VidAngel to copy or publicly perform the Copyrighted Works, or to exercise any
20 other rights affecting their copyrights with respect to the Copyrighted Works.
21

VidAngel’s Unlawful Service

22

30.

VidAngel operates a VOD streaming service located online at

23 http://www.vidangel.com and available through a mobile application, which users
24 can download and use on their internet-connected smartphones, tablets and
25 televisions. In addition to streaming movies and television shows, VidAngel offers
26 users who want to skip or mute content within certain categories the ability to select
27 filter settings that will make such content imperceptible during playback. VidAngel
28 users must select at least one category to filter. As discussed below, however, the

ER621

-8-

COMPLAINT

Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 1 Filed 06/09/16 Page 10 of 20 Page ID #:10

1 single category can include the opening or closing credits, thus allowing VidAngel to
2 stream essentially the entire movie unfiltered.
3

31.

VidAngel accomplishes the very core of its service—copying and

4 streaming copyrighted motion picture content—by violating copyright law and
5 Plaintiffs’ rights. VidAngel obtains the Copyrighted Works it streams by apparently
6 circumventing technological protection measures designed to prevent unauthorized
7 access to and copying of the copyrighted content on DVDs and Blu-ray discs.
8 VidAngel then copies that protected content and streams the Copyrighted Works
9 from those unauthorized copies, by internet transmissions, to members of the public.
10 VidAngel’s justifications for its blatant infringing conduct are without merit.
11

VidAngel Circumvents Technological Protection Measures to Access and

12

Copy Plaintiffs’ Copyrighted Works

13

32.

DVDs and Blu-ray discs are optical discs that contain recorded material

14 in digital form. Each type of disc includes technological protection measures (or
15 “TPMs”) that protect against unauthorized access to and copying of the copyrighted
16 content that is encrypted on those discs. The TPMs that protect Plaintiffs’ content on
17 DVDs and Blu-ray discs include the Content Scramble System (for DVDs) and the
18 Advanced Access Content System and/or BD+ (for Blu-ray discs).
19

33.

The TPMs protect audiovisual content on DVDs and Blu-ray discs

20 through the use of encryption and keys embedded in the content recorded on the
21 physical discs. Licensing organizations control access to the TPM technologies, so
22 as to secure authorized playback of content on DVDs or Blu-ray discs and so as not
23 to permit unauthorized access to or copying of copyrighted content. These licensing
24 and technology systems allow copyright owners to distribute their content on DVDs
25 or Blu-ray discs, while limiting unauthorized copying or redistribution of that
26 content. The TPMs effectively control access to copyrighted content on DVDs and
27 Blu-ray discs, respectively.
28

ER622

-9-

COMPLAINT

Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 1 Filed 06/09/16 Page 11 of 20 Page ID #:11

1

34.

VidAngel circumvents the TPMs on DVD and Blu-ray discs to access

2 Plaintiffs’ Copyrighted Works for the purpose of copying those works and has no
3 authorization to do so. VidAngel’s circumvention of the TPMs violates Section 1201
4 of the DMCA.
5

VidAngel’s Unauthorized Copying and Streaming to the Public of Plaintiffs’

6

Copyrighted Content

7

35.

After circumventing the TPMs, VidAngel makes unauthorized digital

8 copies of the works on the underlying DVD and Blu-ray discs and uses the
9 unauthorized copies to transmit performances of Plaintiffs’ Copyrighted Works to
10 members of the public.
11

36.

VidAngel markets itself as transmitting performances of copyrighted

12 works, through VOD streaming, to members of the public:
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

37.

VidAngel’s unauthorized copying and streaming of the Copyrighted

22 Works violates Plaintiffs’ exclusive rights to reproduce and publicly perform the
23 Copyrighted Works under 17 U.S.C. §§ 106(1), (4).
24

VidAngel’s Efforts to Characterize Its Service as Legitimate Fail

25

38.

VidAngel offers two fictions to justify its unlicensed VOD service.

26 Both are meritless.
27
28

ER623

- 10 -

COMPLAINT

Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 1 Filed 06/09/16 Page 12 of 20 Page ID #:12

1

(a)

2

VidAngel’s “Sale” Fiction Does Not Justify its Illegal VOD
Service

3

39.

VidAngel claims its service is legal because it is selling, not renting,

4 content to its users. Indeed, VidAngel publicly admits that it would be illegal for it
5 to offer a VOD “rental” service without authorization from copyright owners.1 But
6 VidAngel is wrong that the sale/rental distinction makes a difference. In either case,
7 VidAngel would need to obtain copyright owner authorization to decrypt
8 copyrighted content on protected discs, to copy that content, and to stream that
9 content to the public.
10

40.

VidAngel nevertheless perpetrates the fiction that it is “selling” discs to

11 its users in the first place. VidAngel itself explains the “buy and sellback”
12 transaction in terms that highlight the fact it is charging users as little as a dollar a
13 day for temporary VOD access to popular movies and television shows. The
14 following screenshot and language from a “how-to” use VidAngel video posted right
15 on the service’s homepage show that the purported “sale” is a gimmick:
16

In 15 seconds, here’s how VidAngel lets
you watch movies for one dollar. You buy
a movie for 20 dollars. Don’t worry, it ends
up being one dollar. Since you own the
movie, you can legally set your filters. Now
watch your movie. Then, with the click of a
button, sell it back to us for 19 dollars of
credit. That means each movie is only one
dollar. It’s that simple. Buy for 20, set
filters, watch it, sell it back for 19. Enjoy
your one dollar movie.2

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

1

VidAngel’s “How To” page includes the following question and response: “Why
can’t I just rent movies? It is not legal for VidAngel to rent movies to you.”
2
www.vidangel.com

28

ER624

- 11 -

COMPLAINT

Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 1 Filed 06/09/16 Page 13 of 20 Page ID #:13

1

VidAngel, by its own “don’t worry” assurance, confesses to its users (and the

2

world) that VidAngel is providing a dollar-a-day VOD rental service.

3

41.

Although VidAngel purports to “sell” copyrighted content, it

4 discourages users from “keeping” the content they purportedly “purchase.” Before
5 watching a movie or television show, the user can check a box to “Auto-Sellback”
6 after he or she has finished watching the content:
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

If the VidAngel user does not select the “Auto-Sellback” option, a popup message

15

appears when the user has finished his or her viewing; the popup encourages the

16

user to “SELL BACK NOW” for the daily price. VidAngel’s “Buy, Watch, Sell

17

Back” is a fiction that fails to hide VidAngel’s real business: providing a VOD

18

streaming service to users in return for a daily fee.

19

42.

VidAngel’s offering of individual episodes of television shows further

20 evidences “Buy, Watch, Sell Back” to be a complete fiction. Plaintiffs distribute
21 entire seasons of television shows, rather than individual episodes, on DVDs or Blu22 ray discs. Therefore, VidAngel cannot actually be “selling” a disc containing
23 television programming to its users when it offers to stream television shows on a
24 per-episode basis only—a method not available on DVD or Blu-ray products.
25

43.

Regardless of the label, VidAngel is running an unlicensed VOD

26 streaming service. When a user requests that VidAngel stream a movie or television
27 show, VidAngel streams (without authorization) the underlying copyrighted content
28 from a digital copy that VidAngel made (without authorization). At all relevant

ER625

- 12 -

COMPLAINT

Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 1 Filed 06/09/16 Page 14 of 20 Page ID #:14

1 times, VidAngel, not the user, has dominion and control over the digital copy and (to
2 the extent it still exists) whatever physical DVD or Blu-ray disc VidAngel used to
3 access and copy the content in the first instance. VidAngel needs, and does not have,
4 Plaintiffs’ authorization to copy and stream their content.
5

(b)

6
7

VidAngel Cannot Use The Family Movie Act to Justify its
Illegal Streaming Service

44.

The FMA does not shield VidAngel’s unlicensed service. The FMA

8 provides that one does not infringe copyright by (a) “making imperceptible, by or at
9 the direction of a member of a private household … limited portions” of motion
10 picture content “during a performance in or transmitted to that household for private
11 home viewing, from an authorized copy of the motion picture”; or (b) creating or
12 providing computer technology that enables lawful making-imperceptible activity.
13 17 U.S.C. § 110(11). But, the FMA does not “impact[] established doctrines of
14 copyright.” 151 Cong. Rec. S501 (daily ed. Jan. 25, 2005) (Sen. Hatch). The FMA
15 requires that any copy or performance made pursuant to that statute be otherwise
16 “authorized”—that is, not violating the copyright owner’s other exclusive rights. 17
17 U.S.C. § 110(11). Likewise, the FMA does not sanction the circumvention of the
18 TPMs that protect access to the copyrighted content on DVDs or Blu-ray discs. See
19 151 Cong. Rec. at S502 (FMA does not allow circumvention “for the purpose of
20 engaging in the conduct covered by” the FMA).
21

45.

VidAngel is not “mak[ing] imperceptible . . . limited portions” of

22 motion picture content in the course of an otherwise lawful transmission. 17 U.S.C.
23 § 110(11). Rather, VidAngel provides on-demand access to the motion picture itself,
24 without any authorization to do so. Nothing in the FMA authorizes such conduct.
25

46.

VidAngel also permits users to watch essentially unfiltered movies and

26 television shows by selecting to filter just the credits and nothing more. If a user
27 wants to watch an unfiltered version of the content, he or she can do so through
28 VidAngel with minimal effort and at a fraction of the price charged by licensed

ER626

- 13 -

COMPLAINT

Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 1 Filed 06/09/16 Page 15 of 20 Page ID #:15

1 services. Indeed, some people already have started to make social media postings
2 touting the fact they can use VidAngel to watch movies and television shows
3 essentially unfiltered; as VidAngel continues to grow, more and more current and
4 potential users will be encouraged to use the service in the same way:
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

47.

VidAngel did not always offer its filtering service through its current

13 infringing model. VidAngel originally distributed an internet web browser “plug-in”
14 that muted and skipped content as it was streamed from other services—notably,
15 Google Play, which is authorized to provide Plaintiffs’ content. Presumably,
16 VidAngel altered its business model to profit directly from the unlawful copying and
17 exploitation of the Copyrighted Works at the expense of Plaintiffs and their
18 relationships with streaming service licensees—authorized services that are being
19 undercut by VidAngel’s unauthorized service.
20
21

VidAngel’s Conduct Causes Immediate and Irreparable Harm
48.

VidAngel currently claims to have more than 1,500 titles available for

22 streaming and claims to be adding motion pictures at a rate of 60 per week.
23 VidAngel intends to offer streaming of all new movies that have received more than
24 $10 million in domestic sales.
25

49.

If left unabated, VidAngel will undermine Plaintiffs’ relationships with

26 their authorized licensees and interfere with Plaintiffs’ ability to negotiate with those
27 legitimate VOD services. Because VidAngel cuts out payments to copyright owners
28 for the rights it exploits, VidAngel is able to undercut licensed services, which pay

ER627

- 14 -

COMPLAINT

Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 1 Filed 06/09/16 Page 16 of 20 Page ID #:16

1 for the same content. VidAngel explicitly advertises itself as a way to “Save on
2 Popular New Releases” compared to licensed VOD services:
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
50.

10

Public media outlets have picked up on VidAngel’s ability to undercut

11 the pricing of authorized distributors. One online review noted the price comparison:
12 “Even if you turn the filter entirely off, it’s the cheapest streaming rental out there,
13 and about the same as Redbox, without the hassle of going to the store, or
3
14 remembering to return the disc.”
51.

15

If VidAngel continues offering performances of copyrighted content not

16 yet available on authorized streaming services, VidAngel also will interfere with
17 Plaintiffs’ ability to distribute their content, including through authorized licensees or
18 other legitimate distribution channels. VidAngel offers an entire category of movies
19 and television programs, including many of the Copyrighted Works, that are “Not on
20 Netflix.” As described above, VidAngel recently advertised that it offers Star Wars:
21 The Force Awakens for $1 per day when that title was not available for single-day
22 rental elsewhere. Licensed VOD services, in contrast, often are not authorized to
23 offer single-day “rentals” until weeks after VidAngel offers such access for the same
24 titles.
25
3

26
27

“Rent Edited Streaming ‘Clean Flicks’ – A Review of VidAngel’s New Edited
Movie Service,” Mormon Life Hacker (Jun. 9, 2015) available at <
http://mormonlifehacker.com/rent-edited-streaming-clean-flicks-review-vidangelmovie-service/>.

28

ER628

- 15 -

COMPLAINT

Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 1 Filed 06/09/16 Page 17 of 20 Page ID #:17

1

52.

VidAngel’s circumvention of the TPMs and its making unauthorized

2 copies undermines Plaintiffs’ ability to negotiate for quality controls in the
3 dissemination of their copyrighted content.
4

53.

By characterizing VidAngel as a legitimate and lawful alternative to

5 licensed online services, VidAngel threatens to confuse consumers and the public
6 and drive up early and immediate adoption of the VidAngel service by numerous
7 additional end users.
8

54.

VidAngel’s unlawful conduct and unfair competition with licensed

9 distribution channels causes Plaintiffs immediate and irreparable harm. Unless
10 enjoined, VidAngel’s illegal actions will continue.
11

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

12

(Copyright Infringement, 17 U.S.C. §§ 106(1), (4))

13

55.

Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference each and every averment

14 contained in paragraphs 1 through 54 inclusive.
15

56.

VidAngel infringes Plaintiffs’ exclusive rights to copy and make public

16 performances of the Copyrighted Works, in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 106(1), (4).
17

57.

VidAngel does not have Plaintiffs’ authorization to make digital copies

18 of the Copyrighted Works.
19

58.

VidAngel does not have Plaintiffs’ authorization to publicly perform the

20 Copyrighted Works.
21

59.

VidAngel’s acts of infringement are willful, in disregard of and with

22 indifference to Plaintiffs’ rights.
23

60.

As a direct and proximate result of the infringements by VidAngel,

24 Plaintiffs are entitled to damages and VidAngel’s profits in amounts to be proven at
25 trial.
26

61.

Alternatively, at their election, Plaintiffs are entitled to statutory

27 damages, up to the maximum amount of $150,000 per statutory award by virtue of
28

ER629

- 16 -

COMPLAINT

Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 1 Filed 06/09/16 Page 18 of 20 Page ID #:18

1 VidAngel’s willful infringement, or for such other amounts as may be proper under
2 17 U.S.C. § 504.
3

62.

Plaintiffs further are entitled to recover their attorneys’ fees and full

4 costs pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505.
5

63.

As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing acts and conduct,

6 Plaintiffs have sustained and will continue to sustain substantial, immediate and
7 irreparable injury, for which there is no adequate remedy at law. Unless enjoined
8 and restrained by this Court, VidAngel will continue to infringe Plaintiffs’ rights in
9 their Copyrighted Works. Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief under 17 U.S.C.
10 § 502.
11

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

12

(Violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 1201, et seq.)

13

64.

Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference each and every averment

14 contained in paragraphs 1 through 54 inclusive.
15

65.

Section 1201(a)(1)(A) of the DMCA provides in pertinent part that

16 “[n]o person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls
17 access to a work protected under [the Copyright Act].” 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)(A).
18

66.

Plaintiffs use TPMs to effectively control access to, and to protect the

19 exclusive rights of copyright in, motion pictures, television programs, and other
20 works protected by the Copyright Act.
21

67.

On information and belief, VidAngel circumvents the TPMs of the

22 DVD and Blu-ray discs containing the Copyrighted Works, and, therefore, VidAngel
23 has violated 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)(A).
24

68.

This circumvention in violation of the DMCA constitutes a separate and

25 independent unlawful act and claim for relief from those stated in the first cause of
26 action.
27

69.

Plaintiffs have sustained and will sustain actual damage as the result of

28 VidAngel’s DMCA violations, including, among other things, damages to the value

ER630

- 17 -

COMPLAINT

Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 1 Filed 06/09/16 Page 19 of 20 Page ID #:19

1 of the Copyrighted Works and the reduction in Plaintiffs’ goodwill in the
2 Copyrighted Works. 17 U.S.C. § 1203(c)(2). Plaintiffs are also entitled to
3 VidAngel’s profits from its violations of the DMCA. Id.
4

70.

Alternatively, and at their election, Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of

5 the maximum statutory damages as permitted by the DMCA. Id. § 1203(c)(3).
6

71.

VidAngel’s conduct, unless enjoined and restrained by this Court, will

7 cause immediate and irreparable injury to Plaintiffs who have no adequate remedy at
8 law. Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 1203(b)(2), Plaintiffs are entitled to preliminary and
9 permanent injunctions prohibiting VidAngel’s further violations of § 1201.
10

72.

Plaintiffs are further entitled to their attorneys’ fees and full costs

11 pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 1203.
12

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

13

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against VidAngel and against all

14

of its affiliates, agents, servants, employees, partners and all persons in active

15

concert or participation with it, for the following relief:

16

1.

For Plaintiffs’ damages and VidAngel’s profits in such amount as may

17

be found; alternatively, at Plaintiffs’ election, for maximum statutory damages; or

18

for such other amounts as may be proper pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §§ 504(c), 1203(c).

19

2.

For preliminary and permanent injunctions enjoining VidAngel, and

20

all persons acting in concert or participation with it, from publicly performing,

21

reproducing, or otherwise infringing in any manner any copyrighted work owned or

22

controlled by Plaintiffs (including without limitation any Copyrighted Work) and

23

from circumventing technological measures protecting any copyrighted work

24

owned or controlled by Plaintiffs (including without limitation any Copyrighted

25

Works).

26

3.

For prejudgment interest according to law.

27

4.

For Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and full costs incurred in this action

28

pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §§ 505 and 1203.

ER631

- 18 -

COMPLAINT

Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 1 Filed 06/09/16 Page 20 of 20 Page ID #:20

1
2

5.

For all such further and additional relief, in law or in equity, to which

Plaintiffs may be entitled or which the Court deems just and proper.

3

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

4

Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on all issues triable by jury.

5
6

DATED: June 9, 2016

MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP

7
8

By:

9
10

/s/ Kelly M. Klaus
KELLY M. KLAUS

Attorney for Plaintiffs

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ER632

- 19 -

COMPLAINT

ACCO,(PLAx),AO121,APPEAL,DISCOVERY,MANADR,PROTORD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
(Western Division ­ Los Angeles)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:16­cv­04109­AB­PLA
Disney Enterprises, Inc. et al v. VidAngel Inc.
Assigned to: Judge Andre Birotte Jr
Referred to: Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams
Demand: $150,000
Case in other court:  9th CCA, 16­56843
Cause: 17:501 Copyright Infringement

Date Filed: 06/09/2016
Jury Demand: Both
Nature of Suit: 820 Copyright
Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff
Disney Enterprises, Inc.

represented by Allyson Bennett 
Munger Tolles and Olson LLP 
355 South Grand Avenue 35th Floor 
Los Angeles, CA 90071 
213­683­9190 
Fax: 213­683­5190 
Email: [e-mail] 
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Glenn D Pomerantz 
Munger Tolles and Olson LLP 
355 South Grand Avenue 35th Floor 
Los Angeles, CA 90071­1560 
213­683­9100 
Fax: 213­687­3702 
Email: [e-mail] 
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rose Leda Ehler 
Munger Tolles and Olson LLP 
355 South Grand Avenue 35th Floor 
Los Angeles, CA 90071­1560 
213­683­9100 
Fax: 213­687­3702 
Email: [e-mail] 
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly M Klaus 
Munger Tolles and Olson LLP 
355 South Grand Avenue 35th Floor 
Los Angeles, CA 90071­1560 
213­683­9100 
Fax: 213­687­3702 
Email: [e-mail] 
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

ER633

Plaintiff
Lucasfilm Ltd LLC

represented by Allyson Bennett 
(See above for address) 
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Glenn D Pomerantz 
(See above for address) 
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rose Leda Ehler 
(See above for address) 
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly M Klaus 
(See above for address) 
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation

represented by Allyson Bennett 
(See above for address) 
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Glenn D Pomerantz 
(See above for address) 
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rose Leda Ehler 
(See above for address) 
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly M Klaus 
(See above for address) 
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Warner Bros Entertainment Inc

represented by Allyson Bennett 
(See above for address) 
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Glenn D Pomerantz 
(See above for address) 
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rose Leda Ehler 
(See above for address) 
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly M Klaus 
(See above for address) 
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.

ER634

Movant
John Hostettler 
TERMINATED: 11/10/2016

represented by William A Delgado 
Willenken Wilson Loh and Delgado LLP 
707 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 3850 
Los Angeles, CA 90017 
213­955­9240 
Fax: 213­955­9250 
Email: [e-mail] 
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant
Spencer Bachus 
TERMINATED: 11/10/2016

represented by William A Delgado 
(See above for address) 
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
VidAngel Inc.

represented by Brian T Grace 
Baker Marquart LLP 
2029 Century Park East 16th Floor 
Los Angeles, CA 90067 
424­652­7800 
Fax: 424­652­7850 
Email: [e-mail] 
LEAD ATTORNEY 
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David W Quinto 
VidAngel Inc 
3007 Franklin Canyon Drive 
Beverly Hills, CA 90210 
213­604­1777 
Fax: 213­604­1777 
Email: [e-mail] 
LEAD ATTORNEY 
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donald R Pepperman 
Blecher Collins Pepperman and Joye PC 
515 South Figueroa Street Suite 1750 
Los Angeles, CA 90071­3334 
213­622­4222 
Fax: 213­622­1656 
Email: [e-mail] 
LEAD ATTORNEY 
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

ER635

Maxwell M Blecher 
Blecher Collins Pepperman and Joye PC 
515 South Figueroa Street Suite 1750 
Los Angeles, CA 90071­3334 
213­622­4222 

ER636

Fax: 213­622­1656 
Email: [e-mail] 

LEAD ATTORNEY 

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ryan G Baker 
Baker Marquart LLP 
2029 Century Park East Suite 1600 
Los Angeles, CA 90067 
424­652­7800 
Fax: 424­652­7850 
Email: [e-mail] 

LEAD ATTORNEY 

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Scott Matthew Malzahn 
Baker Marquart LLP 
2029 Century Park East Suite 1600 
Los Angeles, CA 90067 
424­652­7800 
Fax: 424­652­7850 
Email: [e-mail] 

LEAD ATTORNEY 

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Taylor Chase­Wagniere 
Blecher Collins Pepperman and Joye PC 
515 S Figueroa St Suite 1750 
Los Angeles, CA 90071 
213­622­4222 
Fax: 213­622­1656 
Email: [e-mail] 

LEAD ATTORNEY 

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brendan Stephen Maher 
Stris & Maher LLP 
6688 North Central Expressway 
Suite 1650 
Dallas, TX 75206 
213­995­6805 
Fax: 213­261­0299 
Email: [e-mail] 

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel L Geyser 
Stris and Maher LLP 
725 South Figueroa Street Suite 1830 
Los Angeles, CA 90017 
213­995­6811 
Fax: 213­261­0299 
Email: [e-mail] 

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth Rogers Brannen 
Stris and Maher LLP 
725 South Figueroa Street Suite 1830 
Los Angeles, CA 90017 
213­995­6809 
Fax: 213­261­0299 
Email: [e-mail] 

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter K Stris 
Stris and Maher LLP 
725 South Figueroa Street Suite 1830 
Los Angeles, CA 90017 
213­995­6800 
Fax: 213­261­0299 
Email: [e-mail] 

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jaime W Marquart 
Baker Marquart LLP 
2029 Century Park East 16th Floor 
Los Angeles, CA 90067 
424­652­7800 
Fax: 424­652­7850 
Email: [e-mail] 

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Counter Claimant
VidAngel Inc.

represented by Brian T Grace 
(See above for address) 
LEAD ATTORNEY 
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David W Quinto 
(See above for address) 
LEAD ATTORNEY 
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donald R Pepperman 
(See above for address) 
LEAD ATTORNEY 
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maxwell M Blecher 
(See above for address) 
LEAD ATTORNEY 
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ryan G Baker 
(See above for address) 
LEAD ATTORNEY 
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

ER637

Scott Matthew Malzahn 

(See above for address) 

LEAD ATTORNEY 

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Taylor Chase­Wagniere 
(See above for address) 

LEAD ATTORNEY 

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brendan Stephen Maher 
(See above for address) 

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel L Geyser 
(See above for address) 

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth Rogers Brannen 
(See above for address) 

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter K Stris 
(See above for address) 

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jaime W Marquart 
(See above for address) 

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
V.
Counter Defendant
Disney Enterprises, Inc.

represented by Allyson Bennett 
(See above for address) 
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Glenn D Pomerantz 
(See above for address) 
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rose Leda Ehler 
(See above for address) 
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly M Klaus 
(See above for address) 
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Counter Defendant
Lucasfilm Ltd LLC

ER638

represented by Allyson Bennett 
(See above for address) 
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Glenn D Pomerantz 
(See above for address) 

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rose Leda Ehler 
(See above for address) 

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kelly M Klaus 
(See above for address) 

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Counter Defendant
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation

represented by Allyson Bennett 
(See above for address) 
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Glenn D Pomerantz 
(See above for address) 
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rose Leda Ehler 
(See above for address) 
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly M Klaus 
(See above for address) 
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Counter Defendant
Warner Bros Entertainment Inc

represented by Allyson Bennett 
(See above for address) 
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Glenn D Pomerantz 
(See above for address) 
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rose Leda Ehler 
(See above for address) 
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly M Klaus 
(See above for address) 
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Counter Defendant
Does 
1­100
Date Filed
06/09/2016

ER639

#

Docket Text

1  COMPLAINT Receipt No: 0973­17974278 ­ Fee: $400, filed by Plaintiffs Warner Bros

Entertainment Inc, Disney Enterprises, Inc., Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation,
Lucasfilm Ltd LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (Attorney Kelly M Klaus added to
party Disney Enterprises, Inc.(pty:pla), Attorney Kelly M Klaus added to party Lucasfilm
Ltd LLC(pty:pla), Attorney Kelly M Klaus added to party Twentieth Century Fox Film
Corporation(pty:pla), Attorney Kelly M Klaus added to party Warner Bros Entertainment
Inc(pty:pla))(Klaus, Kelly) (Entered: 06/09/2016)
06/09/2016

2  CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiffs Disney Enterprises, Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd LLC,
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Warner Bros Entertainment Inc. (Klaus, Kelly)
(Entered: 06/09/2016)

06/09/2016

3  Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening),, 1
filed by Plaintiffs Disney Enterprises, Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd LLC, Twentieth Century Fox
Film Corporation, Warner Bros Entertainment Inc. (Klaus, Kelly) (Entered: 06/09/2016)

06/09/2016

4  CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT filed by Plaintiffs Disney Enterprises, Inc.,
Lucasfilm Ltd LLC, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Warner Bros
Entertainment Inc identifying The Walt Disney Company, Twenty­First Century Fox, Inc.
and Time Warner Inc. as Corporate Parent. (Klaus, Kelly) (Entered: 06/09/2016)

06/09/2016

5  REPORT ON THE FILING OF AN ACTION regarding a copyright (Initial Notification)
filed by Disney Enterprises, Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd LLC, Twentieth Century Fox Film
Corporation, Warner Bros Entertainment Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Klaus, Kelly)
(Entered: 06/09/2016)

06/10/2016

6  NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Andre Birotte Jr and Magistrate Judge
Paul L. Abrams. (et) (Entered: 06/10/2016)

06/10/2016

7  NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT­DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (et) (Entered:
06/10/2016)

06/10/2016

8  21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) 1 as to Defendant
VidAngel Inc. (et) (Entered: 06/10/2016)

06/15/2016

9  PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Warner Bros Entertainment Inc, Disney
Enterprises, Inc., Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Lucasfilm Ltd LLC, upon
Defendant VidAngel Inc. served on 6/13/2016, answer due 7/5/2016. Service of the
Summons and Complaint were executed upon Neal Harmon, Chief Executive Officer,
Harmon Ventures LLC, Registered Agent in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure by service on a domestic corporation, unincorporated association, or public
entity.Original Summons NOT returned. (Ehler, Rose) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

07/05/2016

10  STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to VidAngel Inc. answer
now due 7/12/2016, filed by Defendant VidAngel Inc..(Attorney Jaime W Marquart
added to party VidAngel Inc.(pty:dft))(Marquart, Jaime) (Entered: 07/05/2016)

07/12/2016

11  ANSWERJURY DEMAND. and Counterclaim filed by Defendant and Counterclaimant
VidAngel Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A ­ B)(Baker, Ryan) (Entered: 07/12/2016)

07/12/2016

12  CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT and Notice of Interested Parties filed by
Defendant VidAngel Inc. identifying VidAngel, Inc. as Corporate Parent. (Baker, Ryan)
(Entered: 07/12/2016)

07/12/2016

ER640

  (DUPLICATE ENTRY) COUNTER­COMPLAINT against Counterdefendants Disney
Enterprises, Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, and
Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc., with Jury Demand filed by Defendant and
Counterclaimant VidAngel, Inc. (Answer and Counter­Complaint filed as one document,
see document number 11) (gk) (Entered: 07/17/2016)

07/13/2016

13  ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE by Judge Andre Birotte Jr.
Scheduling Conference set for 10/31/2016 at 10:00 AM before Judge Andre Birotte Jr.
(cb) (Entered: 07/13/2016)

07/22/2016

14  STIPULATION for Preliminary Injunction as to Preliminary Injunction Briefing and
Hearing Schedule filed by Plaintiffs and Counter­Defendants Disney Enterprises, Inc.,
Lucasfilm Ltd LLC, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Warner Bros
Entertainment Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order [Proposed] Order Regarding
Preliminary Injunction Briefing and Hearing Schedule)(Klaus, Kelly) (Entered:
07/22/2016)

07/25/2016

15  ORDER REGARDING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION BRIEFING AND HEARING
SCHEDULE by Judge Andre Birotte Jr.: Upon Stipulation 14 , IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction will be filed and served on
8/22/2016. Defendant's Opposition will be filed and served on 9/12/2016; Plaintiffs'
Reply will be filed and served on 10/3/2016. The Court will hear argument on the Motion
on 10/24/2016 at 10:00 AM. (gk) (Entered: 07/25/2016)

07/29/2016

16  STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Response as to Counterclaim, filed by
Plaintiffs Disney Enterprises, Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd LLC, Twentieth Century Fox Film
Corporation, Warner Bros Entertainment Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order
Regarding Stipulation)(Klaus, Kelly) (Entered: 07/29/2016)

08/03/2016

17  ORDER REGARDING STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO
COUNTER COMPLAINT by Judge Andre Birotte Jr. Upon consideration of the Parties'
Stipulation To Extend Time To Respond To Counter Complaint 16 , and good cause
appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: The time for Plaintiffs' to answer
or otherwise respond to the Counter Complaint is hereby extended to August 16, 2016.
The Parties should continue their meet­and­confer discussions regarding possible
additional motions and schedules for briefing and the proposed hearing of the same, and
submit any proposed stipulation regarding the same to the Court. (iv) (Entered:
08/04/2016)

08/08/2016

18  NOTICE of Association of Counsel associating attorney David W. Quinto on behalf of
Counter Claimant VidAngel Inc., Defendant VidAngel Inc.. Filed by Counter Claimant
VidAngel Inc., Defendant VidAngel Inc. (Grace, Brian) (Entered: 08/08/2016)

08/12/2016

19  STIPULATION for Hearing re Motion to Dismiss Briefing and Hearing Schedule and
Page Limits for Briefing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Plaintiffs Disney
Enterprises, Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd LLC, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Warner
Bros Entertainment Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Klaus, Kelly) (Entered:
08/12/2016)

08/18/2016

20  MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING DISMISSAL
FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION by Judge Andre Birotte Jr. The Court, on its own
motion, orders Counter­Claimant(s) to show cause, in writing, on or before September 1,
2016, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. Pursuant to Rule
78 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court finds that this matter is appropriate
for submission without oral argument. The Order to Show Cause will stand submitted
upon the filing of Counter­Claimant(s) response. Failure to respond to this Order to Show
Cause will be deemed consent to the dismissal of the action. (iv) (Entered: 08/18/2016)

08/18/2016

21  STIPULATION for Protective Order filed by Defendant and Counter­Claimant VidAngel
Inc..(Grace, Brian) (Entered: 08/18/2016)

08/18/2016

22  NOTICE TO COUNSEL: The Order to Show Cause (Dkt. No. 20) was inadvertently
issued in this case and is therefore vacated. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT

ER641

ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (cb) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 08/18/2016)
08/19/2016

23  PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams re Stipulation for
Protective Order 21 (NOTE CHANGES MADE BY THE COURT) (sbu) (Entered:
08/19/2016)

08/19/2016

24  ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO DISMISS BRIEFING AND HEARING
SCHEDULE AND PAGE LIMITS FOR BRIEFING ON MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by Judge Andre Birotte Jr, re Stipulation for Hearing, 19
. Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss will filed and served on 8/26/16. (Responses due by
9/16/2016, Replies due by 10/7/2016. Motion set for hearing on 10/24/2016 at 10:00 AM
before Judge Andre Birotte Jr.) (mrgo) (Entered: 08/19/2016)

08/22/2016

25  APPLICATION to file document Unredated Versions of Motion for Preliminary
Injunction, Exhibits to Declaration of Rose Ehler and Declaration of Robert Schumann
and Exhibits under seal filed by Plaintiffs Disney Enterprises, Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd LLC,
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Warner Bros Entertainment Inc. (Attachments:
# 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Redacted Document Proposed Redacted Motion for Preliminary
Injunction, # 3 Redacted Document Proposed Redacted Exhibit B, # 4 Redacted
Document Proposed Redacted Exhibit D, # 5 Redacted Document Proposed Redacted
Exhibit R, # 6 Redacted Document Proposed Redacted Exhibit S, # 7 Redacted
Document Proposed Redacted Exhibit T, # 8 Redacted Document Proposed Redacted
Exhibit U, # 9 Redacted Document Proposed Redacted Exhibit V, # 10 Redacted
Document Proposed Redacted Exhibit W, # 11 Redacted Document Proposed Redacted
Exhibit X, # 12 Redacted Document Proposed Redacted Exhibit Y, # 13 Redacted
Document Proposed Redacted Exhibit Z, # 14 Redacted Document Proposed Redacted
Exhibit AA, # 15 Redacted Document Proposed Redacted Exhibit BB, # 16 Redacted
Document Proposed Redacted Exhibit CC, # 17 Redacted Document Proposed Redacted
Exhibit DD, # 18 Redacted Document Proposed Redacted Exhibit EE, # 19 Redacted
Document Proposed Redacted Declaration of Robert Schumann, # 20 Redacted
Document Proposed Redacted Exhibit C, # 21 Redacted Document Proposed Redacted
Exhibit D)(Klaus, Kelly) (Entered: 08/22/2016)

08/22/2016

26  SEALED DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION to file document
Unredated Versions of Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Exhibits to Declaration of
Rose Ehler and Declaration of Robert Schumann and Exhibits under seal 25 filed by
Plaintiffs Disney Enterprises, Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd LLC, Twentieth Century Fox Film
Corporation, Warner Bros Entertainment Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Unredacted Document
Motion for Preliminary Injunction, # 2 Unredacted Document Exhibit B, # 3 Unredacted
Document Exhibit D, # 4 Unredacted Document Exhibit R, # 5 Unredacted Document
Exhibit S, # 6 Unredacted Document Exhibit T, # 7 Unredacted Document Exhibit U, # 8
Unredacted Document Exhibit V, # 9 Unredacted Document Exhibit W, # 10 Unredacted
Document Exhibit X, # 11 Unredacted Document Exhibit Y, # 12 Unredacted Document
Exhibit Z, # 13 Unredacted Document Exhibit AA, # 14 Unredacted Document Exhibit
BB, # 15 Unredacted Document Exhibit CC, # 16 Unredacted Document Exhibit DD, #
17 Unredacted Document Exhibit EE, # 18 Unredacted Document Declaration of Robert
Schumann, # 19 Unredacted Document Exhibit C, # 20 Unredacted Document Exhibit D)
(Klaus, Kelly) (Entered: 08/22/2016)

08/22/2016

27  NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re VidAngel . Motion
filed by Plaintiffs Disney Enterprises, Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd LLC, Twentieth Century Fox
Film Corporation, Warner Bros Entertainment Inc. Motion set for hearing on 10/24/2016
at 10:00 AM before Judge Andre Birotte Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Klaus,
Kelly) (Entered: 08/22/2016)

08/22/2016

28  DECLARATION of Tedd Cittadine in support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND

ER642

MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re VidAngel . Motion 27 filed by Plaintiffs Disney
Enterprises, Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd LLC, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Warner
Bros Entertainment Inc. (Klaus, Kelly) (Entered: 08/22/2016)
08/22/2016

29  DECLARATION of Robert Schumann in support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND
MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re VidAngel . Motion 27 filed by Plaintiffs Disney
Enterprises, Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd LLC, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Warner
Bros Entertainment Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4
Exhibit D)(Klaus, Kelly) (Entered: 08/22/2016)

08/22/2016

30  DECLARATION of Rose Leda Ehler in support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND
MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re VidAngel . Motion 27 filed by Plaintiffs Disney
Enterprises, Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd LLC, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Warner
Bros Entertainment Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4
Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10
Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O,
# 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit R, # 19 Exhibit S, # 20 Exhibit T, # 21
Exhibit U, # 22 Exhibit V, # 23 Exhibit W, # 24 Exhibit X, # 25 Exhibit Y, # 26 Exhibit
Z, # 27 Exhibit AA, # 28 Exhibit BB, # 29 Exhibit CC, # 30 Exhibit DD, # 31 Exhibit
EE, # 32 Exhibit FF)(Klaus, Kelly) (Entered: 08/22/2016)

08/22/2016

31  DECLARATION of Kelly M. Klaus in support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND
MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re VidAngel . Motion 27 filed by Plaintiffs Disney
Enterprises, Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd LLC, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Warner
Bros Entertainment Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4
Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10
Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O,
# 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit R, # 19 Exhibit S, # 20 Exhibit T, # 21
Exhibit U, # 22 Exhibit V, # 23 Exhibit W, # 24 Exhibit X, # 25 Exhibit Y, # 26 Exhibit
Z, # 27 Exhibit AA, # 28 Exhibit BB, # 29 Exhibit CC, # 30 Exhibit DD, # 31 Exhibit
EE, # 32 Exhibit FF, # 33 Exhibit GG, # 34 Exhibit HH, # 35 Exhibit II, # 36 Exhibit JJ,
# 37 Exhibit KK, Part 1, # 38 Exhibit KK, Part 2, # 39 Exhibit LL, # 40 Exhibit MM, #
41 Exhibit NN, # 42 Exhibit OO, # 43 Exhibit PP, # 44 Exhibit QQ, # 45 Exhibit RR)
(Klaus, Kelly) (Entered: 08/22/2016)

08/23/2016

32  ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS' APPLICATION TO FILE UNDER SEAL: 1
UNREDACTED VERSION OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION; 2 EXHIBITS B, D, R­Z AND AA­EE TO THE DEClARATION OF
ROSE LEDA EHLER; 3 UNREDACTED VERSION OF THE DECLARATION OF
ROBERT SCHUMANN AND EXHIBITS C AND D THERETO by Judge Andre Birotte
Jr. Plaintiffs have submitted an Application seeking permission to file under seal 25 .
Based on Plaintiffs' Application, and good cause appearing therefrom, Plaintiffs'
Application is GRANTED and IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the following documents
and portions thereof shall be electronically filed under seal by Plaintiffs' counsel. SEE
ORDER FOR DETAILS. (iv) (Entered: 08/23/2016)

08/23/2016

33  SEALED DOCUMENT Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion and Motion for Preliminary
Injunction; Memorandum of Points and Authorities and Exhibits to Ehler Declaration
and Schumann Declaration with Exhibits re APPLICATION to file document Unredated
Versions of Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Exhibits to Declaration of Rose Ehler and
Declaration of Robert Schumann and Exhibits under seal 25 , Order on Motion for Leave
to File Document Under Seal,, 32 filed by Plaintiffs Disney Enterprises, Inc., Lucasfilm
Ltd LLC, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Warner Bros Entertainment Inc.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit B to Ehler Decl., # 2 Exhibit D to Ehler Decl., # 3 Exhibit R to
Ehler Decl., # 4 Exhibit S to Ehler Decl., # 5 Exhibit T to Ehler Decl., # 6 Exhibit U to
Ehler Decl., # 7 Exhibit V to Ehler Decl., # 8 Exhibit W to Ehler Decl., # 9 Exhibit X to

ER643

Ehler Decl., # 10 Exhibit Y to Ehler Decl., # 11 Exhibit Z to Ehler Decl., # 12 Exhibit
AA to Ehler Decl., # 13 Exhibit BB to Ehler Decl., # 14 Exhibit CC to Ehler Decl., # 15
Exhibit DD to Ehler Decl., # 16 Exhibit EE to Ehler Decl., # 17 Declaration of Robert
Schumann, # 18 Exhibit C to Schumann Decl., # 19 Exhibit D to Schumann Decl.)
(Klaus, Kelly) (Entered: 08/23/2016)
08/23/2016

34  PROOF OF SERVICE filed by Plaintiffs Disney Enterprises, Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd LLC,
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Warner Bros Entertainment Inc, re Sealed
Declaration in SupportDeclaration,,,, 26 , Sealed Document,,,,, 33 served on August 22
and 23, 2016. (Klaus, Kelly) (Entered: 08/23/2016)

08/26/2016

35  NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss VidAngel's Countercomplaint filed
by Defendant and Counter­Claimant Disney Enterprises, Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd LLC,
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation. Motion set for hearing on 10/24/2016 at 10:00
AM before Judge Andre Birotte Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Allyson Bennett in
Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss VidAngel's Countercomplaint, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3
Proposed Order) (Klaus, Kelly) (Entered: 08/26/2016)

08/26/2016

36  NOTICE of Association of Counsel associating attorney Maxwell M. Blecher on behalf
of Counter Claimant VidAngel Inc., Defendant VidAngel Inc.. Filed by Counter Claimant
VidAngel Inc., Defendant VidAngel Inc. (Marquart, Jaime) (Entered: 08/26/2016)

09/08/2016

37  NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Peter K Stris on behalf of Counter Claimant
VidAngel Inc., Defendant VidAngel Inc. (Attorney Peter K Stris added to party VidAngel
Inc.(pty:cc), Attorney Peter K Stris added to party VidAngel Inc.(pty:dft))(Stris, Peter)
(Entered: 09/08/2016)

09/08/2016

38  NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Brendan Stephen Maher on behalf of Counter
Claimant VidAngel Inc., Defendant VidAngel Inc. (Attorney Brendan Stephen Maher
added to party VidAngel Inc.(pty:cc), Attorney Brendan Stephen Maher added to party
VidAngel Inc.(pty:dft))(Maher, Brendan) (Entered: 09/08/2016)

09/08/2016

39  NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Elizabeth Rogers Brannen on behalf of Counter
Claimant VidAngel Inc., Defendant VidAngel Inc. (Attorney Elizabeth Rogers Brannen
added to party VidAngel Inc.(pty:cc), Attorney Elizabeth Rogers Brannen added to party
VidAngel Inc.(pty:dft))(Brannen, Elizabeth) (Entered: 09/08/2016)

09/08/2016

40  NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Daniel L Geyser on behalf of Counter
Claimant VidAngel Inc., Defendant VidAngel Inc. (Attorney Daniel L Geyser added to
party VidAngel Inc.(pty:cc), Attorney Daniel L Geyser added to party VidAngel Inc.
(pty:dft))(Geyser, Daniel) (Entered: 09/08/2016)

09/12/2016

41  APPLICATION for Leave to file Unredacted Versions of Opposition to Motion for
Preliminary Injunction, Declarations of Neal Harmon and Sigurd Meldal, and Exhibit B
and D to Marquart Declaration Under Seal filed by Defendant and Counter­Claimant
VidAngel Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Redacted Document Proposed
Redacted VidAngel's Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Motion
for Preliminary Injunction, # 3 Redacted Document Proposed Redacted Declaration of
Neal Harmon, # 4 SEALED ATTACHMENT ­ Redacted Document Proposed Redacted
Declaration of Sigurd Meldal, # 5 Redacted Document Proposed Redacted Exhibit B to
Marquart Declaration, # 6 Redacted Document Proposed Redacted Exhibit D to Marquart
Declaration) (Marquart, Jaime) ** SEALED ATTACHMENT 4 PURSUANT TO THE
ORDER OF 9/28/2016 86 ** Modified on 9/28/2016 (gk). (Entered: 09/12/2016)

09/12/2016

42  MEMORANDUM in Opposition to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for
Preliminary Injunction re VidAngel . Motion 27 filed by Counter Claimant VidAngel
Inc., Defendant VidAngel Inc.. (Marquart, Jaime) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

ER644

09/12/2016

43  DECLARATION of Neal Harmon In Opposition To NOTICE OF MOTION AND
MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re VidAngel . Motion 27 filed by Counter Claimant
VidAngel Inc., Defendant VidAngel Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3
Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H)
(Marquart, Jaime) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

09/12/2016

44  DECLARATION of Sigurd Meldal In Opposition To NOTICE OF MOTION AND
MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re VidAngel . Motion 27 filed by Counter Claimant
VidAngel Inc., Defendant VidAngel Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 SEALED ATTACHMENT ­
Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7
Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H)(Marquart, Jaime) ** SEALED ATTACHMENT 1
PURSUANT TO THE ORDER OF 9/28/2016 85 ** Modified on 9/28/2016 (gk).
(Entered: 09/12/2016)

09/12/2016

45  DECLARATION of Jaime Marquart In Opposition To NOTICE OF MOTION AND
MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re VidAngel . Motion 27 filed by Counter Claimant
VidAngel Inc., Defendant VidAngel Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3
Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Marquart, Jaime) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

09/12/2016

46  DECLARATION of David Quinto In Opposition To NOTICE OF MOTION AND
MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re VidAngel . Motion 27 filed by Counter Claimant
VidAngel Inc., Defendant VidAngel Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3
Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Marquart, Jaime) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

09/12/2016

47  DECLARATION of Elizabeth Ellis In Opposition To NOTICE OF MOTION AND
MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re VidAngel . Motion 27 filed by Counter Claimant
VidAngel Inc., Defendant VidAngel Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3
Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G)(Marquart, Jaime)
(Entered: 09/12/2016)

09/12/2016

48  REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE re NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for
Preliminary Injunction re VidAngel . Motion 27 filed by Counter Claimant VidAngel
Inc., Defendant VidAngel Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit
C)(Marquart, Jaime) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

09/12/2016

49  SEALED DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION to file document
Unredated Versions of Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Exhibits to Declaration of
Rose Ehler and Declaration of Robert Schumann and Exhibits under seal 25 filed by
Counter Claimant VidAngel Inc., Defendant VidAngel Inc.. (Attachments: # 1
Unredacted Document Opposition to Preliminary Injunction, # 2 Unredacted Document
Declaration of Neal Harmon, # 3 Unredacted Document Declaration of Sigurd Meldal, #
4 Unredacted Document Exhibit B to Marquart Declaration, # 5 Unredacted Document
Exhibit D to Marquart Declaration, # 6 Proof of Service)(Marquart, Jaime) (Entered:
09/12/2016)

09/12/2016

50  DECLARATION of Andrea Lafferty In Opposition To NOTICE OF MOTION AND
MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re VidAngel . Motion 27 filed by Counter Claimant
VidAngel Inc., Defendant VidAngel Inc.. (Marquart, Jaime) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

09/12/2016

51  DECLARATION of Bob Waliszewski In Opposition To NOTICE OF MOTION AND
MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re VidAngel . Motion 27 filed by Counter Claimant
VidAngel Inc., Defendant VidAngel Inc.. (Marquart, Jaime) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

09/12/2016

52  DECLARATION of Bryan and Diane Schwartzin In Opposition To NOTICE OF
MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re VidAngel . Motion 27 filed by
Counter Claimant VidAngel Inc., Defendant VidAngel Inc.. (Marquart, Jaime) (Entered:
09/12/2016)

ER645

09/12/2016

53  DECLARATION of Donna Rice Hughes In Opposition To NOTICE OF MOTION AND
MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re VidAngel . Motion 27 filed by Counter Claimant
VidAngel Inc., Defendant VidAngel Inc.. (Marquart, Jaime) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

09/12/2016

54  DECLARATION of Timothy F. Winter In Opposition To NOTICE OF MOTION AND
MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re VidAngel . Motion 27 filed by Counter Claimant
VidAngel Inc., Defendant VidAngel Inc.. (Marquart, Jaime) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

09/12/2016

55  DECLARATION of Harry Jackson In Opposition To NOTICE OF MOTION AND
MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re VidAngel . Motion 27 filed by Counter Claimant
VidAngel Inc., Defendant VidAngel Inc.. (Marquart, Jaime) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

09/12/2016

56  DECLARATION of Connor Boyack In Opposition To NOTICE OF MOTION AND
MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re VidAngel . Motion 27 filed by Counter Claimant
VidAngel Inc., Defendant VidAngel Inc.. (Marquart, Jaime) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

09/12/2016

57  DECLARATION of David Barton In Opposition To NOTICE OF MOTION AND
MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re VidAngel . Motion 27 filed by Counter Claimant
VidAngel Inc., Defendant VidAngel Inc.. (Marquart, Jaime) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

09/12/2016

58  DECLARATION of David Bozell In Opposition To NOTICE OF MOTION AND
MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re VidAngel . Motion 27 filed by Counter Claimant
VidAngel Inc., Defendant VidAngel Inc.. (Marquart, Jaime) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

09/12/2016

59  DECLARATION of Gary Bauer In Opposition To NOTICE OF MOTION AND
MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re VidAngel . Motion 27 filed by Counter Claimant
VidAngel Inc., Defendant VidAngel Inc.. (Marquart, Jaime) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

09/12/2016

60  DECLARATION of Gary Marx In Opposition To NOTICE OF MOTION AND
MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re VidAngel . Motion 27 filed by Counter Claimant
VidAngel Inc., Defendant VidAngel Inc.. (Marquart, Jaime) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

09/12/2016

61  DECLARATION of George E. Roller In Opposition To NOTICE OF MOTION AND
MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re VidAngel . Motion 27 filed by Counter Claimant
VidAngel Inc., Defendant VidAngel Inc.. (Marquart, Jaime) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

09/12/2016

62  DECLARATION of L Brent Bozell III In Opposition To NOTICE OF MOTION AND
MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re VidAngel . Motion 27 filed by Counter Claimant
VidAngel Inc., Defendant VidAngel Inc.. (Marquart, Jaime) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

09/12/2016

63  DECLARATION of Matt Kibbe In Opposition To NOTICE OF MOTION AND
MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re VidAngel . Motion 27 filed by Counter Claimant
VidAngel Inc., Defendant VidAngel Inc.. (Marquart, Jaime) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

09/12/2016

64  DECLARATION of Patrick Trueman In Opposition To NOTICE OF MOTION AND
MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re VidAngel . Motion 27 filed by Counter Claimant
VidAngel Inc., Defendant VidAngel Inc.. (Marquart, Jaime) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

09/12/2016

65  DECLARATION of Rebecca Hagelin In Opposition To NOTICE OF MOTION AND
MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re VidAngel . Motion 27 filed by Counter Claimant
VidAngel Inc., Defendant VidAngel Inc.. (Marquart, Jaime) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

09/12/2016

66  DECLARATION of Rick Green In Opposition To NOTICE OF MOTION AND
MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re VidAngel . Motion 27 filed by Counter Claimant
VidAngel Inc., Defendant VidAngel Inc.. (Marquart, Jaime) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

09/12/2016

67  DECLARATION of Theodore Baehr In Opposition To NOTICE OF MOTION AND
MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re VidAngel . Motion 27 filed by Counter Claimant
VidAngel Inc., Defendant VidAngel Inc.. (Marquart, Jaime) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

ER646

09/12/2016

68  DECLARATION of Tim Barton In Opposition To NOTICE OF MOTION AND
MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re VidAngel . Motion 27 filed by Counter Claimant
VidAngel Inc., Defendant VidAngel Inc.. (Marquart, Jaime) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

09/12/2016

69  DECLARATION of Tim Wildmon In Opposition To NOTICE OF MOTION AND
MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re VidAngel . Motion 27 filed by Counter Claimant
VidAngel Inc., Defendant VidAngel Inc.. (Marquart, Jaime) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

09/12/2016

70  DEFENDANT VIDANGEL, INC.'S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE
DECLARATION OF KELLY M. KLAUS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION re NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for
Preliminary Injunction re VidAngel . Motion 27 filed by Counter Claimant VidAngel
Inc., Defendant VidAngel Inc.. (Marquart, Jaime) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

09/12/2016

71  DEFENDANT VIDANGEL, INC.'S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE
DECLARATION OF ROBERT SCHUMANN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS'
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION re NOTICE OF MOTION AND
MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re VidAngel . Motion 27 filed by Counter Claimant
VidAngel Inc., Defendant VidAngel Inc.. (Marquart, Jaime) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

09/12/2016

72  DEFENDANT VIDANGEL, INC.'S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE
DECLARATION OF ROSE LEDA EHLER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION re NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for
Preliminary Injunction re VidAngel . Motion 27 filed by Counter Claimant VidAngel
Inc., Defendant VidAngel Inc.. (Marquart, Jaime) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

09/12/2016

73  DEFENDANT VIDANGEL, INC.'S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE
DECLARATION OF TEDD CITTADINE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION re NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for
Preliminary Injunction re VidAngel . Motion 27 filed by Counter Claimant VidAngel
Inc., Defendant VidAngel Inc.. (Marquart, Jaime) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

09/13/2016

74  STIPULATION to Continue Hearings on (1) Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction
and (2) Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss from October 24, 2016 to October 31, 2016 Re:
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re VidAngel . Motion
27 , NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss VidAngel's Countercomplaint 35
filed by Defendant and Counter­Claimant VidAngel Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed
Order Granting Joint Stipulation to Continue Hearings)(Marquart, Jaime) (Entered:
09/13/2016)

09/14/2016

75  ORDER REGARDING VIDANGEL, INC.'S APPLICATION TO FILE UNDER SEAL:
(1) UNREDACTED VERSION OF VIDANGEL'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS
AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION; (2) UNREDACTED VERSION OF THE DECLARATION OF NEAL
HARMON; (3) UNREDACTED VERSION OF THE DECLARATION OF SIGURD
MELDAL; AND (4) EXHIBITS B AND D TO THE DECLARATION OF JAIME
MARQUART by Judge Andre Birotte Jr.: VidAngel's Application 41 is GRANTED. See
order for documents and portions thereof to be filed under seal. (gk) (Entered:
09/15/2016)

09/15/2016

76  NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Counter Claimant VidAngel Inc., Defendant VidAngel
Inc.. correcting MEMORANDUM in Opposition to Motion 42 , Sealed Declaration in
SupportDeclaration,, 49 [49­1] Unredacted Document Opposition to Preliminary
Injunction (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Marquart, Jaime) (Entered: 09/15/2016)

09/16/2016

77  AMENDED ANSWER and FIRST AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS filed by Defendant
and Counterclaimant VidAngel Inc.. (Blecher, Maxwell) (Entered: 09/16/2016)

ER647

09/16/2016

78  ORDER CONTINUING HEARING OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTIONS FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND TO DISMISS VIDANGEL'S
COUNTERCOMPLAINT by Judge Andre Birotte Jr.: Upon Stipulation 74 , IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motions for Preliminary Injunction 27 , and to
Dismiss VidAngel's Countercomplaint 35 be, and hereby are, continued for hearing
before this Court on 10/31/2016 at 10:00 AM before Judge Andre Birotte Jr. (gk)
(Entered: 09/16/2016)

09/20/2016

79  STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Response filed by Plaintiffs and Counter­
Defendants Disney Enterprises, Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd LLC, Twentieth Century Fox Film
Corporation, Warner Bros Entertainment Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order
Regarding Stipulation to Extend Plaintiffs' Time to Respond to Defendant's Amended
Answer and Counterclaims)(Klaus, Kelly) (Entered: 09/20/2016)

09/21/2016

80  SEALED DOCUMENT Unredacted Version of VidAngel's Memorandum of Points and
Authorities in Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Unredacted Version
of the Declaration of Neal Harmon and Unredacted Version of the Declaration of Sigurd
Meldal and Unredacted Version of Exhibit B to the Declaration of Jaime Marquart and
Unredacted Version of Exhibit D to the Declaration of Jaime Marquart and Certificate of
Service re Sealed Documents re Order on Motion for Leave to File Document,, 75 ,
APPLICATION for Leave to file Unredacted Versions of Opposition to Motion for
Preliminary Injunction, Declarations of Neal Harmon and Sigurd Meldal, and Exhibit B
and D to Marquart Declaration Under Seal 41 filed by Counter Claimant VidAngel Inc.,
Defendant VidAngel Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Unredacted Document Declaration of Neal
Harmon, # 2 Unredacted Document Declaration of Sigurd Meldal, # 3 Unredacted
Document Exhibit B to the Declaration of Jaime Marquart, # 4 Unredacted Document
Exhibit D to the Declaration of Jaime Marquart, # 5 Certificate of Service re Sealed
Documents)(Marquart, Jaime) (Entered: 09/21/2016)

09/21/2016

81  NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Counter Claimant VidAngel Inc., Defendant VidAngel
Inc.. correcting APPLICATION for Leave to file Unredacted Versions of Opposition to
Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Declarations of Neal Harmon and Sigurd Meldal, and
Exhibit B and D to Marquart Declaration Under Seal 41 , Declaration (Motion related),
44 Redacted of Sigurd Meldal (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to Notice of Errata ­
Corrected Redacted Sigurd Meldal Declaration)(Marquart, Jaime) (Entered: 09/21/2016)

09/21/2016

82  APPLICATION to file document Declaration of Sigurd Meldal (Dkt. 41­4) under seal
filed by Counter Claimant VidAngel Inc., Defendant VidAngel Inc.. (Attachments: # 1
Proposed Order Regarding VidAngel, Inc.'s Application to Seal the Declaration of Sigurd
Meldal in Support of VidAngel, Inc.'s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in
Opposition to Preliminary Injunction Motion (Dkt. 41­4))(Marquart, Jaime) (Entered:
09/21/2016)

09/21/2016

83  APPLICATION to file document Declaration of Sigurd Meldal (Dkt. 44­1) under seal
filed by Counter Claimant VidAngel Inc., Defendant VidAngel Inc.. (Attachments: # 1
Proposed Order Regarding VidAngel, Inc.'s Application to Seal the Declaration of Sigurd
Meldal in Support of VidAngel, Inc.'s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in
Opposition to Preliminary Injunction Motion (Dkt. 44­1))(Marquart, Jaime) (Entered:
09/21/2016)

09/21/2016

84  ORDER REGARDING STIPULATION TO EXTEND PLAINTIFFS' TIME TO
RESPOND TO DEFENDANT'S AMENDED ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS by
Judge Andre Birotte Jr.: Upon Stipulation 79 , IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the time
for Plaintiffs to answer or otherwise respond to Defendant's Amended Answer and
Counterclaims 77 is hereby extended to and including 10/14/2016. Plaintiffs' Motion for
Preliminary Injunction 27 remains on calendar for hearing on 10/31/2016 at 10:00 AM.

ER648

There will be no hearing that day on Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss Defendant's Original
Counterclaims 35 which Motion to Dismiss has been mooted by Defendant's amendment
of its Counterclaims. (gk) Modified on 10/13/2016 (cb). (Entered: 09/22/2016)
09/28/2016

85  ORDER REGARDING VIDANGEL, INC.'S APPLICATION TO SEAL THE
DECLARATION OF SIGURD MELDAL IN SUPPORT OF VIDANGEL, INC.'S
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION MOTION (Dkt. 44­1) by Judge Andre Birotte Jr.:
Defendant VidAngel, Inc.'s Application 83 is GRANTED and IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that Docket entry 44 ­1 be sealed. Please refer to Dkt. 81 for the corrected
redacted Declaration of Sigurd Meldal in support of VidAngel's Opposition to
Preliminary Injunction. (gk) (Entered: 09/28/2016)

09/28/2016

86  ORDER REGARDING VIDANGEL, INC.'S APPLICATION TO SEAL THE
DECLARATION OF SIGURD MELDAL IN SUPPORT OF VIDANGEL, INC.'S
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION MOTION (Dkt. 41­4) by Judge Andre Birotte Jr.:
Defendant VidAngel, Inc.'s Application 82 is GRANTED and IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that Docket entry 41 ­4 be sealed. Please refer to Dkt. 81 for the corrected
redacted Declaration of Sigurd Meldal in support of VidAngel's Opposition to
Preliminary Injunction. (gk) (Entered: 09/28/2016)

10/03/2016

87  NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE:
Amended Answer to Complaint 77 . The following error(s) was found: Local Rule 19­1
Complaint/Petition includes more than 10 Does or fictitiously named parties. In response
to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the
document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not
take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so.
(iv) (Entered: 10/03/2016)

10/03/2016

88  APPLICATION to file document (Reply in support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction;
Decl. of Allyson Bennett and Exhibits J and M; Declaration of Robert Schumann and
Exhibit F) under seal filed by Plaintiffs Disney Enterprises, Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd LLC,
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Warner Bros Entertainment Inc. (Attachments:
# 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Redacted Document Reply in support of Plaintiffs' Motion for
Preliminary Injunction, # 3 Redacted Document Decl. of Allyson Bennett, # 4 Redacted
Document Exhibit J to Bennett Decl., # 5 Redacted Document Exhibit M to Bennett
Decl., # 6 Redacted Document Decl. of Robert Schumann, # 7 Redacted Document
Exhibit F to Schumann Decl.)(Klaus, Kelly) (Entered: 10/03/2016)

10/03/2016

89  SEALED DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION to file document (Reply in
support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction; Decl. of Allyson Bennett and Exhibits J
and M; Declaration of Robert Schumann and Exhibit F) under seal 88 filed by Plaintiffs
Disney Enterprises, Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd LLC, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation,
Warner Bros Entertainment Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Unredacted Document Reply in
support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction, # 2 Unredacted Document Decl. of Allyson
Bennett, # 3 Unredacted Document Exhibit J to Bennett Decl., # 4 Unredacted Document
Exhibit M to Bennett Decl., # 5 Unredacted Document Supp. Decl. of Robert Schumann,
# 6 Unredacted Document Exhibit F to Supp. Schumann Decl.)(Klaus, Kelly) (Entered:
10/03/2016)

10/03/2016

90  REPLY in support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction
re VidAngel . Motion 27 filed by Plaintiffs Disney Enterprises, Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd LLC,
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Warner Bros Entertainment Inc. (Klaus, Kelly)
(Entered: 10/03/2016)

10/03/2016

91  DECLARATION of Allyson R. Bennett in support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND

ER649

MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re VidAngel . Motion 27 filed by Plaintiffs Disney
Enterprises, Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd LLC, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Warner
Bros Entertainment Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4
Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10
Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M)(Klaus, Kelly) (Entered:
10/03/2016)
10/03/2016

92  DECLARATION of Robert Schumann (Supplemental) in support of NOTICE OF
MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re VidAngel . Motion 27 filed by
Plaintiffs Disney Enterprises, Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd LLC, Twentieth Century Fox Film
Corporation, Warner Bros Entertainment Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B,
# 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F)(Klaus, Kelly) (Entered:
10/03/2016)

10/03/2016

93  REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE re NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for
Preliminary Injunction re VidAngel . Motion 27 filed by Plaintiffs Disney Enterprises,
Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd LLC, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Warner Bros
Entertainment Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit
D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J,
# 11 Exhibit K)(Klaus, Kelly) (Entered: 10/03/2016)

10/03/2016

94  RESPONSE filed by Plaintiffs Disney Enterprises, Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd LLC, Twentieth
Century Fox Film Corporation, Warner Bros Entertainment Incto Motion Related
Document, 70 , Motion Related Document, 73 , Motion Related Document, 71 , Motion
Related Document, 72 (Plaintiffs' Response to VidAngel's Evidentiary Objections)
(Klaus, Kelly) (Entered: 10/03/2016)

10/03/2016

95  OBJECTIONS to Declaration (Motion related) 69 , Declaration (Motion related) 53 ,
Declaration (Motion related) 59 , Declaration (Motion related) 64 , Declaration (Motion
related) 65 , Declaration (Motion related) 58 , Declaration (Motion related), 47 ,
Declaration (Motion related), 46 , Declaration (Motion related) 51 , Declaration (Motion
related) 57 , Declaration (Motion related), 44 , Declaration (Motion related), 43 ,
Declaration (Motion related) 60 , Declaration (Motion related) 63 , Declaration (Motion
related) 55 , Declaration (Motion related) 50 , Declaration (Motion related) 54 ,
Declaration (Motion related) 68 , Declaration (Motion related) 62 , Declaration (Motion
related) 66 , Declaration (Motion related) 56 , Declaration (Motion related) 52 ,
Declaration (Motion related) 67 , Declaration (Motion related) 61 (Plaintiffs' Objections
to VidAngel's Evidence in support of Opposition) filed by Plaintiffs Disney Enterprises,
Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd LLC, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Warner Bros
Entertainment Inc. (Klaus, Kelly) (Entered: 10/03/2016)

10/04/2016

96  PROOF OF SERVICE filed by Plaintiffs Disney Enterprises, Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd LLC,
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Warner Bros Entertainment Inc, re Sealed
Declaration in SupportDeclaration,,, 89 served on Oct. 3, 2016. (Klaus, Kelly) (Entered:
10/04/2016)

10/05/2016

97  ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS' APPLICATION TO FILE UNDER SEAL: 1
UNREDACTED VERSION OF PLAINTIFFS' REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; 2 UNREDACTED VERSION OF THE
DECLARATION OF ALLYSON R. BENNETT AND EXHIBITS J AND M THERETO;
3 UNDREDACTED VERSION OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF
ROBERT SCHUMANN AND EXHIBIT F THERETO by Judge Andre Birotte Jr.
Plaintiffs have submitted an Application seeking permission to file under seal 88 . Based
on Plaintiffs' Application, and good cause appearing therefrom, Plaintiffs' Application is
GRANTED and IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' shall file the following

ER650

documents and portions thereof under seal. SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS. (iv) (Entered:
10/05/2016)
10/06/2016

98  SEALED DOCUMENT Plaintiffs' Reply in support of Motion for Preliminary
Injunction, Declaration of Allyson Bennet with Exhibits J and M and Supplemental
Declaration of Robert Schumann with Exhibit F re APPLICATION to file document
(Reply in support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction; Decl. of Allyson Bennett and
Exhibits J and M; Declaration of Robert Schumann and Exhibit F) under seal 88 , Order
on Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal,, 97 filed by Plaintiffs Disney
Enterprises, Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd LLC, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Warner
Bros Entertainment Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Allyson Bennett, # 2 Exhibit J
to Bennett Decl., # 3 Exhibit M to Bennett Decl., # 4 Declaration (Supplemental) of
Robert Schumann, # 5 Exhibit F to Supp. Schumann Decl.)(Klaus, Kelly) (Entered:
10/06/2016)

10/06/2016

99  PROOF OF SERVICE filed by Plaintiffs Disney Enterprises, Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd LLC,
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Warner Bros Entertainment Inc, re Sealed
Document,,, 98 served on October 6, 2016. (Klaus, Kelly) (Entered: 10/06/2016)

10/11/2016

100  Joint STIPULATION to Continue Scheduling Conference from October 31, 2016 to
December 19, 2016 filed by Plaintiffs & Counter­Defendants Disney Enterprises, Inc.,
Lucasfilm Ltd LLC, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Warner Bros
Entertainment Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Klaus, Kelly) (Entered:
10/11/2016)

10/14/2016

101  APPLICATION to file document under seal filed by Counter Defendants Disney
Enterprises, Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd LLC, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Warner
Bros Entertainment Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Redacted Document
Notice and Motion to Dismiss, # 3 Redacted Document Request for Judicial Notice, # 4
Redacted Document Exhibit 4 to Request for Judicial Notice, # 5 Redacted Document
Exhibit 5 to Request for Judicial Notice)(Klaus, Kelly) (Entered: 10/14/2016)

10/14/2016

102  SEALED DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION to file document under
seal 101 filed by Counter Defendants Disney Enterprises, Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd LLC,
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Warner Bros Entertainment Inc. (Attachments:
# 1 Unredacted Document Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss, # 2 Unredacted
Document Request for Judicial Notice, # 3 Unredacted Document Exhibit 4 to Request
for Judicial Notice, # 4 Unredacted Document Exhibit 5 to Request for Judicial Notice)
(Klaus, Kelly) (Entered: 10/14/2016)

10/14/2016

103  NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Counterclaims filed
by Plaintiffs and Counter­Defendants Disney Enterprises, Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd LLC,
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Warner Bros Entertainment Inc. Motion set for
hearing on 12/19/2016 at 10:00 AM before Judge Andre Birotte Jr. (Attachments: # 1
Proposed Order) (Klaus, Kelly) (Entered: 10/14/2016)

10/14/2016

104  REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE re NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to
Dismiss First Amended Counterclaims 103 filed by Counter Defendants Disney
Enterprises, Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd LLC, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Warner
Bros Entertainment Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4
Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7)(Klaus, Kelly) (Entered:
10/14/2016)

10/17/2016

105  PROOF OF SERVICE filed by Plaintiffs & Counter­Defendants Disney Enterprises, Inc.,
Lucasfilm Ltd LLC, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Warner Bros
Entertainment Inc, re NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss First Amended

ER651

Counterclaims 103 , Request for Judicial Notice, 104 served on Oct. 14, 2016. (Klaus,
Kelly) (Entered: 10/17/2016)
10/17/2016

106  EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF ALLYSON BENNETT
re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re VidAngel .
Motion 27 filed by Counter Claimant VidAngel Inc., Defendant VidAngel Inc..
(Marquart, Jaime) (Entered: 10/17/2016)

10/17/2016

107  EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF
ROBERT SCHUMANN re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary
Injunction re VidAngel . Motion 27 filed by Counter Claimant VidAngel Inc., Defendant
VidAngel Inc.. (Marquart, Jaime) (Entered: 10/17/2016)

10/17/2016

108  SUPPLEMENT to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re
VidAngel . Motion 27 Supplemental Request for Judicial Notice filed by Counter
Claimant VidAngel Inc., Defendant VidAngel Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Marquart,
Jaime) (Entered: 10/17/2016)

10/17/2016

109  DECLARATION of William J. Aho in support of VidAngel's Opposition to Plaintiffs'
Motion for Preliminary Injunction NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for
Preliminary Injunction re VidAngel . Motion 27 filed by Counter Claimant VidAngel
Inc., Defendant VidAngel Inc.. (Marquart, Jaime) (Entered: 10/17/2016)

10/17/2016

110  DECLARATION of Neal Harmon in opposition to NOTICE OF MOTION AND
MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re VidAngel . Motion 27 Supplemental Declaration
of Neal Harmon filed by Counter Claimant VidAngel Inc., Defendant VidAngel Inc..
(Marquart, Jaime) (Entered: 10/17/2016)

10/20/2016

111  (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER CONTINUING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (Dkt. No. 27 ) by Judge Andre Birotte Jr. This Court, on
its own motion, hereby CONTINUES the motion hearing date from October 31, 2016 to
Monday, November 21, 2016 at 10:00 AM before Judge Andre Birotte Jr. IT IS SO
ORDERED. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY.
(cb) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 10/20/2016)

10/20/2016

112  (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER CONTINUING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE by Judge
Andre Birotte Jr. This Court, on its own motion, hereby CONTINUES the Scheduling
Conference previously set for October 31,2016 at 10:00 am to Monday, November 21,
2016 at 10:00 AM before Judge Andre Birotte Jr. IT IS SO ORDERED. THERE IS NO
PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (cb) TEXT ONLY ENTRY
(Entered: 10/20/2016)

10/21/2016

113  OBJECTIONS to Declaration (Motion related), 109 , Declaration (Motion related), 110 ,
Objection/Opposition (Motion related), 107 , Objection/Opposition (Motion related) 106
, Supplement(Motion related), 108 (Objections of Plaintiffs to VidAngel's Surreply and
Related Evidentiary Submissions filed in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary
Injunction) filed by Plaintiffs Disney Enterprises, Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd LLC, Twentieth
Century Fox Film Corporation, Warner Bros Entertainment Inc. (Klaus, Kelly) (Entered:
10/21/2016)

10/21/2016

114  ORDER REGARDING STIPULATION TO SET BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR
PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED ANSWER AND
COUNTERCLAIMS AND TO CONTINUE SCHEDULING CONFERENCE FROM
OCTOBER 31, 2016 TO DECEMBER 19, 2016 by Judge Andre Birotte Jr, re Stipulation
to Continue, 100 . (Rule 26 Meeting Report due by 12/5/2016. Scheduling Conference
continued to 12/19/2016 at 10:00 AM before Judge Andre Birotte Jr.) The Motion to

ER652

Dismiss shall be noticed for hearing December 19, 2016, at 10:00 am.(Responses due by
11/15/2016, Replies due by 12/5/2016.) (mrgo) (Entered: 10/24/2016)
10/24/2016

115  DECLARATION of Josh McDowell in support of VidAngel's Opposition to Plaintiffs'
Motion for Preliminary Injunction NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for
Preliminary Injunction re VidAngel . Motion 27 filed by Counter Claimant VidAngel
Inc., Defendant VidAngel Inc.. (Marquart, Jaime) (Entered: 10/24/2016)

10/26/2016

116  STIPULATION for Hearing re NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary
Injunction re VidAngel . Motion 27 filed by Plaintiffs Disney Enterprises, Inc., Lucasfilm
Ltd LLC, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Warner Bros Entertainment Inc.
(Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Klaus, Kelly) (Entered: 10/26/2016)

10/27/2016

117  EX PARTE APPLICATION to Supplement Request for Judicial Notice re NOTICE OF
MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re VidAngel . Motion 27 filed by
Plaintiffs Disney Enterprises, Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd LLC, Twentieth Century Fox Film
Corporation, Warner Bros Entertainment Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Request for
Judicial Notice, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Declaration of Kelly M. Klaus, # 5
Proposed Order, # 6 Notice of Lodging) (Klaus, Kelly) (Entered: 10/27/2016)

10/27/2016

118  ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS' APPLICATION TO FILE UNDER SEAL: 1
UNREDACTED VERSION OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO DISMISS; 2
UNREDACTED VERSION OF PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
AND EXHIBITS 4 AND 5 THERETO; by Judge Andre Birotte Jr: 101 . Based on
Plaintiff's Application, and good cause appearing therefrom, Plaintiffs' Application is
GRANTED. (bp) (Entered: 10/27/2016)

10/28/2016

119  SEALED DOCUMENT (Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss, Request for Judicial Notice and
Exhibits 4 and 5 thereto) re APPLICATION to file document under seal 101 , Order on
Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal, 118 filed by Plaintiffs Disney
Enterprises, Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd LLC, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Warner
Bros Entertainment Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Request for Judicial Notice, # 2 Exhibit 4 to
Request for Judicial Notice, # 3 Exhibit 5 to Request for Judicial Notice)(Klaus, Kelly)
(Entered: 10/28/2016)

10/28/2016

120  PROOF OF SERVICE filed by Plaintiff Disney Enterprises, Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd LLC,
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Warner Bros Entertainment Inc, re EX PARTE
APPLICATION to Supplement Request for Judicial Notice re NOTICE OF MOTION
AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re VidAngel . Motion 27 117 served on
October 28, 2016. (Bennett, Allyson) (Entered: 10/28/2016)

10/28/2016

121  PROOF OF SERVICE filed by Plaintiffs Disney Enterprises, Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd LLC,
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Warner Bros Entertainment Inc, re Sealed
Document,, 119 served on Oct. 28, 2016. (Klaus, Kelly) (Entered: 10/28/2016)

10/28/2016

122  MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Andre Birotte Jr re: EX PARTE
APPLICATION to Supplement Request for Judicial Notice re NOTICE OF MOTION
AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re VidAngel . Motion 27 117 . Should
VidAngel choose to oppose this application, the Court ORDERS that counsel file their
opposition no later than 5:00 p.m. on Monday, October 31, 2016. (mrgo) (Entered:
10/28/2016)

10/28/2016

123  ORDER REGARDING HEARING DATE ON PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by Judge Andre Birotte Jr, re NOTICE OF MOTION
AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re VidAngel . Motion 27 . IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED THAT: The hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt.

ER653

27) shall be moved from November 21, 2016, at 10:00 a.m., to November 14, 2016, at
10:00 a.m. (mrgo) (Entered: 10/28/2016)
10/31/2016

124  OPPOSITION to EX PARTE APPLICATION to Supplement Request for Judicial Notice
re NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re VidAngel .
Motion 27 117 filed by Counter Claimant VidAngel Inc., Defendant VidAngel Inc..
(Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jaime Marquart in support of VidAngel's Response to
Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application for Leave to File Supplemental Request for Judicial
Notice)(Marquart, Jaime) (Entered: 10/31/2016)

11/01/2016

125  ORDER by Judge Andre Birotte Jr: granting 117 EX PARTE APPLICATION to
Supplement Request for Judicial Notice re NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for
Preliminary Injunction re Vid Angel. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Ex Parte
Application for Leave to File Supplemental Request for Judicial Notice in Support of
Motion for Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are permitted to file a
supplemental request for judicial notice in support of their Motion for Preliminary
Injunction, and the Supplemental Request for Judicial Notice concurrently filed with
Plaintiffs ex parte application is deemed filed and served as of the date of this Order.
(shb) (Entered: 11/01/2016)

11/09/2016

126  NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Leave to file Amicus Brief filed by Amicus
Curiae John Hostettler, Spencer Bachus. Motion set for hearing on 11/14/2016 at 10:00
AM before Judge Andre Birotte Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum, # 2 Proposed Order)
(Attorney William A Delgado added to party John Hostettler(pty:mov), Attorney William
A Delgado added to party Spencer Bachus(pty:mov)) (Delgado, William) (Entered:
11/09/2016)

11/10/2016

127  APPLICATION of Non­Resident Attorney Susanna F. Fischer to Appear Pro Hac Vice on
behalf of Movants Spencer Bachus, John Hostettler (Pro Hac Vice Fee ­ Fee Paid,
Receipt No. 0973­18872193) filed by Amici Curiae Spencer Bachus, John Hostettle r.
(Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Good Standing, # 2 Proposed Order) (Delgado, William)
(Entered: 11/10/2016)

11/10/2016

128  MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) Order DENYING Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief
in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Judge Andre Birotte Jr.:
The amicus brief and motion of former U.S. Representatives John Hostettler and Spencer
Bachus were filed on 11/9/2016, more than 30 days after the principal briefs were filed in
this matter. Therefore the motion for leave to file an amicus brief in opposition to
Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction 126 is denied as untimely. Court Reporter:
N/A. (gk) (Entered: 11/10/2016)

11/14/2016

129  (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DEEMING MOVANTS SPENCER BACHUS, JOHN
HOSTETTLERS' APPLICATION TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE AS MOOT (DKT.
127)] by Judge Andre Birotte Jr.: In light of the Courts Order DENYING Motion for
Leave to File Amicus Brief (Dkt. 128), the APPLICATION is MOOT. THERE IS NO
PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (iv) TEXT ONLY ENTRY
(Entered: 11/14/2016)

11/14/2016

130  APPLICATION for Refund of Fees Paid filed by Movants Spencer Bachus, John
Hostettler. (Delgado, William) (Entered: 11/14/2016)

11/14/2016

131  MINUTES OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 27 33
Hearing held before Judge Andre Birotte Jr. The Court having carefully considered the
papers and the evidence submitted by the parties, and having heard the oral argument of
counsel, hereby takes the motion under submission. Court Reporter: Chia Mei Jui. (lom)
(Entered: 11/15/2016)

ER654

11/15/2016

132  MEMORANDUM in Opposition to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss
First Amended Counterclaims 103 filed by Counter Claimant VidAngel Inc., Defendant
VidAngel Inc.. (Blecher, Maxwell) (Entered: 11/15/2016)

11/21/2016

133  STIPULATION for Discovery as to Further Discovery and Initial Disclosures filed by
Plaintiffs Disney Enterprises, Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd LLC, Twentieth Century Fox Film
Corporation, Warner Bros Entertainment Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Klaus,
Kelly) (Entered: 11/21/2016)

11/22/2016

134  ORDER REGARDING FURTHER DISCOVERY AND INITIAL DISCLOSURES by
Judge Andre Birotte Jr.: Upon Stipulation 133 , IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that neither
party will serve additional discovery (on each other or on third parties) before
12/19/2016. The deadline for making initial disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1) also
shall be extended to 12/19/2016. Nothing in this Order precludes either side from
requesting or opposing a further stay of discovery pending the Court's resolution of the
Motion for a Preliminary Injunction or the Motion to Dismiss. (gk) (Entered: 11/23/2016)

12/05/2016

135  NOTICE TO PARTIES by District Judge Andre Birotte Jr. Effective December 12, 2016,
Judge Birotte will be located at the 1st Street Courthouse, COURTROOM 7B on the 7th
floor, located at 350 W. 1st Street, Los Angeles, California 90012. All Court appearances
shall be made in Courtroom 7B of the 1st Street Courthouse, and all mandatory chambers
copies shall be hand delivered to the judge's mail box outside the Clerk's Office on the
4th floor of the 1st Street Courthouse. The location for filing civil documents in paper
format exempted from electronic filing and for viewing case files and other records
services remains at the United States Courthouse, 312 North Spring Street, Room G­8,
Los Angeles, California 90012. The location for filing criminal documents in paper
format exempted from electronic filing remains at Edward R. Roybal Federal Building
and U.S. Courthouse, 255 East Temple Street, Room 178, Los Angeles, California 90012.
THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (rrp) TEXT
ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 12/05/2016)

12/05/2016

136  APPLICATION to file document Plaintiffs' Reply in support of Motion to Dismiss
Amended Counterclaims under seal filed by Counter Defendants Disney Enterprises, Inc.,
Lucasfilm Ltd LLC, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Warner Bros
Entertainment Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Redacted Document Plaintiffs'
Reply in support of Motion to Dismiss Amended Counterclaims)(Klaus, Kelly) (Entered:
12/05/2016)

12/05/2016

137  SEALED DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION to file document
Plaintiffs' Reply in support of Motion to Dismiss Amended Counterclaims under seal 136
filed by Counter Defendants Disney Enterprises, Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd LLC, Twentieth
Century Fox Film Corporation, Warner Bros Entertainment Inc. (Attachments: # 1
Unredacted Document Plaintiffs' Reply in support of Motion to Dismiss Amended
Counterclaims)(Klaus, Kelly) (Entered: 12/05/2016)

12/05/2016

138  REPLY in support NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss First Amended
Counterclaims 103 filed by Counter Defendants Disney Enterprises, Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd
LLC, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Warner Bros Entertainment Inc. (Klaus,
Kelly) (Entered: 12/05/2016)

12/05/2016

139  JOINT REPORT Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan filed by Plaintiffs Disney Enterprises, Inc.,
Lucasfilm Ltd LLC, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Warner Bros
Entertainment Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Plaintiffs' Timetable), # 2 Exhibit B
(VidAngel's Timetable))(Klaus, Kelly) (Entered: 12/05/2016)

12/06/2016

141  ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS' APPLICATION TO FILE UNDER SEAL:
UNREDACTED VERSION OF PLAINTIFFS' REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO

ER655

DISMISS AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS by Judge Andre Birotte Jr.: Plaintiffs'
Application seeking permission to file under seal information designated as confidential
by VidAngel: Unredacted Version of Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss
Amended Counterclaims 136 is GRANTED and IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the
document and portions as stated in this order shall be filed under seal. (gk) (Entered:
12/07/2016)
12/07/2016

140  PROOF OF SERVICE filed by Plaintiffs Disney Enterprises, Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd LLC,
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Warner Bros Entertainment Inc, re Sealed
Declaration in SupportDeclaration, 137 served on 12/05/2016. (Klaus, Kelly) (Entered:
12/07/2016)

12/08/2016

142  SEALED DOCUMENT Plaintiffs' Reply in support of Motion to Dismiss Amended
Counterclaims re APPLICATION to file document Plaintiffs' Reply in support of Motion
to Dismiss Amended Counterclaims under seal 136 , Order on Motion for Leave to File
Document Under Seal,, 141 filed by Counter Defendants Disney Enterprises, Inc.,
Lucasfilm Ltd LLC, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Warner Bros
Entertainment Inc.(Klaus, Kelly) (Entered: 12/08/2016)

12/08/2016

143  PROOF OF SERVICE filed by Plaintiffs/Counter­Defendants Disney Enterprises, Inc.,
Lucasfilm Ltd LLC, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Warner Bros
Entertainment Inc, re Sealed Document, 142 served on 12/08/2016. (Klaus, Kelly)
(Entered: 12/08/2016)

12/12/2016

144  ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by
Judge Andre Birotte Jr.: The Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion for Preliminary
Injunction 27 . Defendants, as well as their officers, employees, attorneys, and those
acting in concert with them are temporarily enjoined re Plaintiffs' copyrighted works on
DVDs, Blu­ray discs, or any other medium, etc. Plaintiff is ordered to post a bond in the
amount of $250,000. See document for details. (gk) (Entered: 12/12/2016)

12/13/2016

145  TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 11/14/16, 10:35 a.m.. Court Reporter/Electronic
Court Recorder: Chia Mei Jui, CSR, [e-mail], Transcript may be viewed at
the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court
Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may
be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date.
Redaction Request due 1/3/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 1/13/2017.
Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/13/2017. (Jui, Chia) (Entered: 12/13/2016)

12/13/2016

146  NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings 11/14/16, 10:35 a.m. re
Transcript 145 THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY.
(Jui, Chia) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 12/13/2016)

12/14/2016

147  EX PARTE APPLICATION to Stay pending Appeal or, Alternatively, Pending Decision
by the Ninth Circuit on Stay Pending Appeal Order on Motion for Preliminary
Injunction, 144 filed by Defendant and Counterclaimant VidAngel Inc.. (Attachments: #
1 Declaration of Jaime Marquart in Support of VidAngel, Inc.'s Ex Parte Application to
Stay Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal or, Alternatively, Pending Decision by the
Ninth Circuit on Stay Pending Appeal, # 2 Proposed Order Granting VidAngel, Inc.'s Ex
Parte Application to Stay Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal or, Alternatively,
Pending Decision by the Ninth Circuit on Stay Pending Appeal) (Marquart, Jaime)
(Entered: 12/14/2016)

12/14/2016

148  NOTICE of Appeal from Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Injunction;
Representation Statement filed by Defendant and Counterclaimant VidAngel Inc..
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to VidAngel, Inc.'s Notice of Appeal from Order Granting

ER656

Motion for Preliminary Injunction; Representation Statement)(Marquart, Jaime)
(Entered: 12/14/2016)
12/14/2016

149  NOTICE OF APPEAL to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals filed by Defendant and
Counterclaimant VidAngel Inc.. Appeal of Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,
144 . (Appeal Fee ­ $505 Fee Paid, Receipt No. 0973­19057881.) (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit A to VidAngel, Inc.'s Notice of Appeal from Order Granting Motion for
Preliminary Injunction; Representation Statement)(Marquart, Jaime) (Entered:
12/14/2016)

12/15/2016

150  APPLICATION for Refund of Fees Paid 130 ­ referred to Judge for ruling. (rdj) (Entered:
12/15/2016)

12/15/2016

151  NOTICE OF FILING OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION BOND PURSUANT TO
FRCP 65(C) AND L.R. 65 filed by PLAINTIFFS Disney Enterprises, Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd
LLC, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Warner Bros Entertainment Inc. (Klaus,
Kelly) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016

152  NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Plaintiffs Disney Enterprises, Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd
LLC, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Warner Bros Entertainment Inc of
Original signed, sealed and notarized bond for preliminary injunction. (Klaus, Kelly)
(Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016

153  NOTIFICATION from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals of case number assigned and
briefing schedule. Appeal Docket No. 16­56843 assigned to Notice of Appeal to 9th
Circuit Court of Appeals, 149 as to Appellant VidAngel Inc.. (mat) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016

154  OPPOSITION to EX PARTE APPLICATION to Stay pending Appeal or, Alternatively,
Pending Decision by the Ninth Circuit on Stay Pending Appeal Order on Motion for
Preliminary Injunction, 144 147 filed by Plaintiffs Disney Enterprises, Inc., Lucasfilm
Ltd LLC, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Warner Bros Entertainment Inc.
(Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Rose Leda Ehler, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4
Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Exhibit H, # 10
Exhibit I, # 11 Exhibit J)(Klaus, Kelly) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016

163  PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION BOND in the amount of $250,000.00 posted by Chubb
Group of Insurance Companies on behalf of Plaintiffs Disney Enterprises, Inc., Lucasfilm
Ltd LLC, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Warner Bros Entertainment Inc.
Bond No. 82447302. (gk) (Entered: 12/23/2016)

12/16/2016

155  ORDER by Judge Andre Birotte Jr.: Granting 130 APPLICATION for Refund of Fees
(G­124). (gk) (Entered: 12/19/2016)

12/19/2016

157  MINUTES OF Scheduling Conference and Motion Hearing held before Judge Andre
Birotte Jr.: The Court having carefully considered the papers and the evidence submitted
by the parties, and having heard the oral argument of counsel, hereby takes the
Scheduling Conference and Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss VidAngel's First Amended
Counterclaims and Strike VidAngel's Affirmative Defense of Copyright Misuse 103
under submission. Court Reporter: Chia Mei Jui. (gk) (Entered: 12/20/2016)

12/20/2016

156  DECLARATION of Kelly M. Klaus re Response in Opposition to Motion,, 154
(Supplemental Declaration of Kelly M. Klaus Regarding VidAngel's Continuing Violation
of Preliminary Injunction, Filed in Further Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to
VidAngel's Ex Parte Application for a Stay) filed by Plaintiffs Disney Enterprises, Inc.,
Lucasfilm Ltd LLC, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Warner Bros
Entertainment Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Klaus, Kelly) (Entered:
12/20/2016)

ER657

12/21/2016

158  DECLARATION of Neal Harmon in Support of VidAngel, Inc.'s Ex Parte Application to
Stay Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal or, Alternatively, Pending Decision by the
Ninth Circuit on Stay Pending Appeal EX PARTE APPLICATION to Stay pending
Appeal or, Alternatively, Pending Decision by the Ninth Circuit on Stay Pending Appeal
Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, 144 147 filed by Counter Claimant
VidAngel Inc., Defendant VidAngel Inc.. (Marquart, Jaime) (Entered: 12/21/2016)

12/22/2016

159  NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Notice
151 . The following error(s) was found: Bond documents are excluded from electronic
filing, pursuant to Local Rule 5­4.2. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an
amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other
action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this
notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (iv) (Entered: 12/22/2016)

12/22/2016

160  TRANSCRIPT ORDER as to Defendant­Counterclaimant VidAngel Inc. for Court
Reporter. Court will contact Jamie H. Lee at [e-mail] with any
questions regarding this order. Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has
been satisfied with the court reporter. (Stris, Peter) (Entered: 12/22/2016)

12/22/2016

161  EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order to Show Cause re: Why VidAngel Should Not Be
Held in Contempt for Violating the Preliminary Injunction Order (Dkt. 144) filed by
Plaintiffs Disney Enterprises, Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd LLC, Twentieth Century Fox Film
Corporation, Warner Bros Entertainment Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Kelly M.
Klaus, # 2 Exhibit A to Klaus Declaration, # 3 Exhibit B to Klaus Declaration, # 4
Exhibit C to Klaus Declaration, # 5 Proposed Order) (Klaus, Kelly) (Entered:
12/22/2016)

12/22/2016

162  REFUND OF $325.00 made payable on 12/22/2016 to Helen Hsiao for payment made on
11/10/2016 Re: Order on Application for Refund of Fees Paid (G­124) 155 . (rdj)
(Entered: 12/22/2016)

12/23/2016

164  OPPOSITION to EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order to Show Cause re: Why
VidAngel Should Not Be Held in Contempt for Violating the Preliminary Injunction
Order (Dkt. 144) 161 filed by Counter Claimant VidAngel Inc., Defendant VidAngel
Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Neal Harmon in support of VidAngel's Opposition
to Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application, # 2 Declaration David Quinto in support of
VidAngel's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application, # 3 Declaration Jarom
McDonald in support of VidAngel's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application)
(Marquart, Jaime) (Entered: 12/23/2016)

12/23/2016

165  DECLARATION of Stephen H. Kay, Senior Vice President, General Counsel of Roku,
Inc. in opposition to EX PARTE APPLICATION to Stay pending Appeal or,
Alternatively, Pending Decision by the Ninth Circuit on Stay Pending Appeal Order on
Motion for Preliminary Injunction, 144 147 (Declaration of Stephen H. Kay filed in
support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to VidAngel's Ex Parte Application for a Stay) filed by
Plaintiffs Disney Enterprises, Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd LLC, Twentieth Century Fox Film
Corporation, Warner Bros Entertainment Inc. (Klaus, Kelly) (Entered: 12/23/2016)

12/29/2016

166  MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) Order DENYING Defendant's Ex Parte Application to
Stay Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal Or Alternatively, Pending Decision by the
Ninth Circuit On Stay Pending Appeal by Judge Andre Birotte Jr. This matter is before
the court on Defendant VidAngel, Inc.'s ("VidAngel") ex parte application 147 to stay the
Court's December 12, 2016 preliminary injunction order granting Plaintiffs' Disney
Enterprises, Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, and
Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. ("Plaintiffs") Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The
Court finds that VidAngel has not shown a likelihood that it will prevail on its appeal, nor
has it shown that the balance of hardships tips sharply in its favor or that the public

ER658

interest is best served by a stay. Therefore, the Court DENIES VidAngel's motion for a
stay in its entirety. (iv) (Entered: 12/29/2016)
12/29/2016

167  DECLARATION of David Quinto re EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order to Show
Cause re: Why VidAngel Should Not Be Held in Contempt for Violating the Preliminary
Injunction Order (Dkt. 144) 161 filed by Counter Claimant VidAngel Inc., Defendant
VidAngel Inc.. (Stris, Peter) (Entered: 12/29/2016)

12/29/2016

168  MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS Order Setting Hearing on Plaintiff's Ex Parte
Application Requesting an Order to Show Cause Why Defendant Should Not Be Held in
Contempt for Violating the Court's Preliminary Injunction Order by Judge Andre Birotte
Jr. The Court hereby sets this matter for hearing on Friday, January 6, 2017 at 10:00 AM.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT that if the Defendant wishes to present further
briefing, their papers shall be filed by no later than 5:00 PM on Wednesday, January 4,
2017. Plaintiffs' response, if any, shall be filed by no later than 5:00 PM on Thursday,
January 5, 2017. 161 (rfi) (Entered: 12/29/2016)

01/03/2017

169  DECLARATION of SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF DAVID QUINTO IN
OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE EX
PARTE APPLICATION for Order to Show Cause re: Why VidAngel Should Not Be
Held in Contempt for Violating the Preliminary Injunction Order (Dkt. 144) 161 filed by
Counter Claimant VidAngel Inc., Defendant VidAngel Inc.. (Baker, Ryan) (Entered:
01/03/2017)

01/04/2017

170  TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 12/19/17, 11:13 a.m.. Court Reporter/Electronic
Court Recorder: Chia Mei Jui, CSR, [e-mail], Transcript may be viewed at
the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court
Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may
be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date.
Redaction Request due 1/25/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/6/2017.
Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/4/2017. (Jui, Chia) (Entered: 01/04/2017)

01/04/2017

171  NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings 12/19/17, 11:13 a.m. re
Transcript 145 , 170 THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS
ENTRY. (Jui, Chia) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 01/04/2017)

01/04/2017

172  ORDER from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals filed re: Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit
Court of Appeals, 149 filed by VidAngel Inc.. CCA # 16­56843. Appellant's motion to
stay the district courts December 12, 2016 order pending appeal is denied. [See document
for all details] (mat) (Entered: 01/04/2017)

01/05/2017

173  RESPONSE IN SUPPORT of EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order to Show Cause re:
Why VidAngel Should Not Be Held in Contempt for Violating the Preliminary Injunction
Order (Dkt. 144) 161 filed by Plaintiffs Disney Enterprises, Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd LLC,
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Warner Bros Entertainment Inc. (Attachments:
# 1 Declaration (Supplemental) of Kelly M. Klaus, # 2 Exhibit A to Supplemental Klaus
Declaration)(Klaus, Kelly) (Entered: 01/05/2017)

01/05/2017

174  NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Plaintiffs Disney Enterprises, Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd LLC,
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Warner Bros Entertainment Inc. correcting
Response in Support of Motion, 173 (Attachments: # 1 Corrected Plaintiffs' Response in
support of Ex Parte Application for an Order to Show Cause Why VidAngel Should Not
Be Held in Contempt for Violating the Preliminary Injunction Order)(Klaus, Kelly)
(Entered: 01/05/2017)

01/06/2017

175  MINUTES OF Status Conference Re Ex Parte Application for an Order to Show Cause
Why VidAngel Should Not Be Held in Contempt for Violating the Preliminary Injunction

ER659

Order held before Judge Andre Birotte Jr.: The Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiffs' Ex
Parte Application 161 for the reasons stated on the record. The Court holds VidAngel,
Inc. in civil contempt of court and finds that an award of reasonable attorney's fees is
justified in this matter. The Court awards $10,231.20 in U.S. dollars to Plaintiffs' counsel.
VidAngel shall pay this amount to Plaintiffs' counsel on or before 2/6/2017. Court
Reporter: Nichole Forrest. (gk) (Entered: 01/06/2017)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt
01/11/2017 15:44:50
PACER
Login:

jamie.lee725:4867159:4867253

Client
Code:

00107­003

Description: Docket Report

Billable
Pages:

ER660

2:16­cv­
04109­AB­
Search
PLA End
Criteria:
date:
1/11/2017
Cost:

27

2.70