Perfect 10 Inc v. Google Inc et al

Filing 294

ORDER by Judge A. Howard Mat on Google Inc Objections To, and Perfect 10, Inc's MOTION for Review of, the Magistrate Judge's Order of February 22, 2008, Granting in Part and Denying In Part Perfect 10, Inc.'s Motion to Compel, came on for hearing on April 14, 2008, the Honorable A. Howard Matz presiding. Jeffrey N. Mausner appeared on behalf of Plaintiff Perfect 10, Inc. ("Perfect 10"). Michael T. Zeller and Rachel M. Herrick appeared on behalf of Defendant and Counterclaimant #257 . Upon consideration of all papers and records on file and the parties' oral argument, the Court orders as follows: Perfect 10's objections to the Magistrate Judge's Order regarding Request Nos. 135, 136, and 137 are overruled, and the Magistrate Judge's Order regarding those Requests is AFFIRMED (see document for further details). GOOGLE'S OBJECTIONS REGARDING REQUEST NO. 174. Google's objections are sustained in part and overruled in part. GOOGLE'S OBJECTIONS REGARDING REQUEST NO. 196 Google's objections are overruled. (jp)

Perfect 10 Inc v. Google Inc et al

Doc. 294

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case No. CV04-9484 AHM (SHx) [Consolidated with Case No. CV 054753 AHM (SHx)] ORDER ON GOOGLE INC.'S OBJECTIONS TO, AND PERFECT 10, INC.'S MOTION FOR REVIEW OF, PORTIONS OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER OF FEBRUARY 22, 2008 GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PERFECT 10'S MOTION TO COMPEL Hon. A. Howard Matz Courtroom: Hearing Date: Hearing Time: 14 April 14, 2008 10:00 am

10 PERFECT 10, INC., a California corporation, 11 Plaintiff, 12 vs. 13 GOOGLE INC., a corporation; and 14 DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, 15 16 17 19 20 vs. Defendants. AND COUNTERCLAIM

PERFECT 10, INC., a California 18 corporation, Plaintiff,

21 AMAZON.COM, INC., a corporation; A9.COM, INC., a corporation; and 22 DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, 23 24 25 26 27 28 Defendants.

Discovery Cutoff: None Set Pretrial Conference Date: None Set Trial Date: None Set

Case No. CV 04-9484 AHM (SHx) [Consolidated with Case No. CV 05-4753 AHM (SHx)] [PROPOSED] ORDER ON GOOGLE'S OBJECTIONS TO, AND PERFECT 10'S MOTION FOR REVIEW OF, THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER Dockets.Justia.com

1 2

ORDER Google Inc.'s Objections To, and Perfect 10, Inc.'s Motion for Review

3 of, the Magistrate Judge's Order of February 22, 2008, Granting in Part and Denying 4 In Part Perfect 10, Inc.'s Motion to Compel, came on for hearing on April 14, 2008, 5 the Honorable A. Howard Matz presiding. Jeffrey N. Mausner appeared on behalf 6 of Plaintiff Perfect 10, Inc. ("Perfect 10"). Michael T. Zeller and Rachel M. Herrick 7 appeared on behalf of Defendant and Counterclaimant Google Inc. ("Google"). 8 10 11 13 137 14 Perfect 10's objections to the Magistrate Judge's Order regarding 15 Request Nos. 135, 136, and 137 are overruled, and the Magistrate Judge's Order 16 regarding those Requests is affirmed. 17 PERFECT 10'S OBJECTIONS REGARDING (PROPOSED) FURTHER 18 ORDER NO. 2 19 Perfect 10 objected to the Magistrate Judge's decision to not enter 20 (Proposed) Further Order No. 2. Pursuant to the discussion at the hearing, the 21 (Proposed) Further Order is imposed mutually on both parties as to all past, present 22 and future requests for production. Accordingly, on or before June 16, 2008, 23 Google shall provide Perfect 10 with a written response stating whether Google has 24 produced documents in response to each of Perfect 10's requests for documents, 25 listed by set number and request number. If no documents responsive to a request 26 are located after a good-faith reasonable search and, therefore, none ultimately 27 produced, Google shall so state with respect to each such request. On or before this 28
Case No. CV 04-9484 AHM (SHx) [Consolidated with Case No. CV 05-4753 AHM (SHx)] [PROPOSED] ORDER ON GOOGLE'S OBJECTIONS TO, AND PERFECT 10'S MOTION FOR REVIEW OF, THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER

Upon consideration of all papers and records on file and the parties'

9 oral argument, the Court orders as follows: ORDERS ON PERFECT 10'S OBJECTIONS

12 PERFECT 10'S OBJECTIONS REGARDING REQUEST NOS. 135, 136, AND

-2-

1 same date, Perfect 10 shall provide Google with a written response stating whether 2 Perfect 10 has produced documents in response to each of Google's requests for 3 documents, listed by set number and request number. If no documents responsive to 4 a request are located after a good-faith reasonable search and, therefore, none 5 ultimately produced, Perfect 10 shall so state with respect to each such request. The 6 obligations of Google and Perfect 10 herein to state whether they have produced 7 documents in response to each other party's requests for documents, listed by set 8 number and request number, shall apply to all future requests for documents as well, 9 and shall be subject to the parties' duties to seasonably supplement their discovery 10 responses pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e). 11 PERFECT 10'S OBJECTIONS REGARDING REQUEST NO. 197 12 Perfect 10's objections to the Magistrate Judge's denial of this Request 13 are sustained. Google shall produce transcripts in its possession, custody or control 14 of depositions of any Google employees, officers and directors taken in connection 15 with the lawsuit Columbia Pictures Industries, et. al. v. Drury, et. al., filed in the 16 United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. 17 18 20 195 21 Google's objections to Request Nos. 128-131 and 194-195 are 22 overruled, but the Requests are limited to reports, studies, or internal memoranda. 23 On or before June 16, 2008, Google shall produce the following: 24 All reports, studies, or internal memoranda ordered, requested, or 25 circulated by Bill Brougher, Susan Wojcicki, Walt Drummond, and Eric Schmidt 26 relating to the following topics: search query frequencies, search query frequencies 27 for adult-related terms, number of clicks on adult images and images in general, 28
Case No. CV 04-9484 AHM (SHx) [Consolidated with Case No. CV 05-4753 AHM (SHx)] [PROPOSED] ORDER ON GOOGLE'S OBJECTIONS TO, AND PERFECT 10'S MOTION FOR REVIEW OF, THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER

ORDERS ON GOOGLE'S OBJECTIONS

19 GOOGLE'S OBJECTIONS REGARDING REQUEST NOS. 128-131 and 194-

-3-

1 traffic to infringing websites, the draw of adult content, and percentage of searches 2 conducted with the safe search filter off. (Request Nos. 128-131). 3 All reports, studies, or internal memoranda circulated by or to John 4 Levine, Heraldo Botelho, Radhika Malpani, Jessie Jiang, Lawrence You, Diane 5 Tang, and Alexander MacGillivray relating to the following topics: search query 6 frequencies, search query frequencies for adult-related terms, number of clicks on 7 adult images and images in general, traffic to infringing websites, the draw of adult 8 content, and percentage of searches conducted with the safe search filter off. 9 (Request Nos. 194-95). 10 GOOGLE'S OBJECTIONS REGARDING REQUEST NO. 174 11 Google's objections are sustained in part and overruled in part. On or 12 before May 15, 2008, Google shall produce documents sufficient to describe 13 Google's attempts to develop or use any image recognition software capable of 14 matching a known still photographic image with another image in Google's search 15 engine index or search engine database. Google is not ordered to produce 16 documents regarding any other types of image recognition technology. 17 / / / 18 / / / 19 / / / 20 / / / 21 / / / 22 / / / 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28
Case No. CV 04-9484 AHM (SHx) [Consolidated with Case No. CV 05-4753 AHM (SHx)] [PROPOSED] ORDER ON GOOGLE'S OBJECTIONS TO, AND PERFECT 10'S MOTION FOR REVIEW OF, THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER

-4-

1 GOOGLE'S OBJECTIONS REGARDING REQUEST NO. 196 2 Google's objections are overruled, subject to the following clarification 3 regarding the scope of Request No. 196. Perfect 10 sought, and the Magistrate 4 Judge ordered, production of "Google's DMCA log." As Perfect 10 clarified at the 5 hearing, "DMCA log" as used in Request No. 196 refers to a spreadsheet-type 6 document summarizing DMCA notices received, the identity of the notifying party 7 and the accused infringer, and the actions (if any) taken in response. Google's 8 obligation to produce documents in response to Request No. 196 shall be subject to 9 the foregoing definition. 10 11 12 DATED: May 13, 2008 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Case No. CV 04-9484 AHM (SHx) [Consolidated with Case No. CV 05-4753 AHM (SHx)] [PROPOSED] ORDER ON GOOGLE'S OBJECTIONS TO, AND PERFECT 10'S MOTION FOR REVIEW OF, THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED.

By A. Howard Matz United States District Judge

-5-