Perfect 10 Inc v. Google Inc et al

Filing 520

STATEMENT of Undisputed Facts in Support of MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to Defendant Google Inc.'s Entitlement to Safe Harbor Under 17 U.S.C. 512(b) For Its Caching Feature [Public Redacted] MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to Defendant Google Inc.'s Entitlement to Safe Harbor Under 17 U.S.C. 512(b) For Its Caching Feature [Public Redacted] #426 Google's Consolidated Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts in Support of Google's Motion for Summary Judgment re: Safe Harbor Under 17 U.S.C. 512(b) for its Caching Feature [Public Redacted] filed by Counter Claimant Google Inc, Defendant Google Inc. (Herrick, Rachel)

Perfect 10 Inc v. Google Inc et al

Doc. 520

1 2 3

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART OLIVER & HEDGES, LLP Michael T. Zeller (Bar No. 196417)
michaelzelleraq uinnemangQl . com 865 South Figueroa Street, 10 Floor Los Angeles, California 90017-2543 Telephone: [phone]

4 Facsimile: [phone] Charles K. erhoeven(Bar No. 170151) charlesverhoeven uiimemanuel.com 5 50 alifomi Street.-22"" Floor 6 San Francisco? California 94111 Rachel Herrick Kassabian (Bar No. 191060) rachelkassabian(c),guinnemanuel. com 7
555 Twin o p in rive, Suite 56-U

8 Redwood Shores, California 94065 9 Attorneys for Defendant GOOGLE INC. 10 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CASE NO. CV 04-9484 AHM (SHx) [ Consolidated with Case No. CV 054753 AHM (SHx)] DEFENDANT GOOGLE'S CONSOLIDATED SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF GOOGLE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: SAFE HARBOR UNDER 17 U.S.C. 512{b FOR ITS CACHING t EAT RE IRebuttal Declarations of Rachel HHerrick Kassabian, Bill Brougher and Shantal Rands Poovala filed concurrently herewith] Hon. A. Howard Matz
Date: None (taken under submission) Time: None Set

12 PERFECT 10, INC., a California corporation, 13 Plaintiff, 14
VS.

15

GOOGLE INC. a corporation; and 16 DOES 1 throw 100, inclusive, 17 18 AND COUNTERCLAIM 19 20 PERFECT 10, INC., a California corporation, 21 Plaintiff, 22
V s.

Defendants.

23 AMAZON.COM, INC., a corporation; .24 A9.COM , INC. a corporation; and DOES 1 through100, inclusive, 25 Defendants. 26 27 28
01980 . 51320 /3092197.1

Crtrm.: 14 Discovery Cut-off: None Set Pretrial Conference Date: None Set Trial Date: None Set PUBLIC REDACTED

DEFENDANT GOOGLE'S CONSOLIDATED SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF GOOGLE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: GOOGLE'S ENTITLEMENT TO SAFE
HARBOR UNDER 17 U.S.C. S 512(6) FOR ITS CACHING FEATURE

Dockets.Justia.com

For the Court's convenience, Defendant Google Inc. ("Google") hereby 2. submits this Consolidated Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts in Support of 3 Google's Motion for Summary Judgment re: Google's Entitlement to Safe Harbor 4 under 17 U.S.C. § 512(b) for its Caching Feature, incorporating verbatim Google's 5 Statement of Uncontroverted Facts and Plaintiff Perfect 10, Inc.'s ("P 10") Statement 6 of Genuine Issues in Opposition to Google's Motion for Summary Judgment re: Safe Harbor under 17 U.S.C. § 512(b) for its Caching Feature, as well as Google's Reply to P 10's Statement of Genuine Issues.

DEFENDANT GOOGLE'S CONSOLIDATED SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF GOOGLE'S MOTIONFOR
Da HARBOR UN13ER 17 U.S.C. § 512(b) FOR ITS CACHING FEATURE

Uncontroverted Facts and Supporting Evidence Google maintains an 1. Internet search engine accessible on the World Wide Web at www.szoojzle.com. Declaration of rougg er in upport of 1 Google's 1Vlotion for -Summary Judgment Re: Google's Entitlement to Safe Harbor Under 17 U . S . C . § 512 ("Brougher

P10's Response and Evidence

Dec.") T 2.

Google does not interfere 2. with any known " standard technical measures ." Declaration of Paul Haahr in Sup ort of Google's Motion for gummary Judgment Re: Google's Entitlement to Safe Harbor Under 17 U.S.C. § 512 ("Haahr Dec.")

T 18.

27 28
019805132013092197.1

-L
DEFENDANT GOOGLE'S CONSOLIDATED SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF GOOGLE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: GOOGLE'S ENTITLEMENT TO SAFE
HARBOR UNDER 17 U. S.C. 6 512fb1 FOR ITS CACHING FEATURE

I 2 3 4
5

Google uses an automated 3. software program to obtain copies of publicly available web pages by sending requests to the server for the originating website and receiving the requested content in response . Brougher Dec. ¶ 4.

6 7

Google's proprietary 4. software analyzes a copy of each web page it receives from the originating web servers and compiles an index of the text available on accessible websites. Brougher Decl. 14.

Google provides Web 5. Search users with the option of selecting a link to a "cached" copy of the web pages that appear in search results . Brougher Dec. ¶ 6.

GOOGLE'S REPLY P 10 does not dispute the identified fact, and has not cited any contrary evidence . It remains uncontroverted . P 10's improper legal argument should be stricken . See Scheduling Order at 6 : 5-6 ("No legal argument should be set forth in this document.").
When a user clicks on the 6. "cached" link. The user sends a request to Google's computers, which respond automatically by transmitting the archival copy of the text -47n web nape that is
DEFENDANT GOOGLE'S CONSOLIDATED SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF GOOGLE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: GOOGLE'S ENTITLEMENT TO SAFE
HARBOR UNDER 17 U.S . C. S 512(b) FOR ITS CACHING FEATURE

27 28
01980 ,5 1 32 0130 92 197.1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

stored in the Web Search cache made available to users. Brougher Dec. T 8.

There are no images stored 7. in Google's cache made available to users. Brougher Dec. ¶ 7.

GOOGLE'S REPLY
P10 has not cited any contrary evidence disputing this fact. It remains uncontroverted.

Any images displayed on a 8. cached page are delivered from their original source, if they still exist at that source. Brougher Dec. 17. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 GOOGLE'S REPLY Most of P 10's response is improper legal argument and should be stricken. GOOGLE'S REPLY P10 does not dispute the identified fact, and has not cited any contrary evidence. It remains uncontroverted. P 10's improper legal argument should be stricken. See Scheduling Order at 6:5-6. Google maintains a copy of 9. the text of a web page in the cache available to users only until its web robot next visits that particular web page. Brougher Dec. ¶ 6.

26 See Scheduling Order at 6:5-6 ("No legal argument should be set forth in this 27 28
01980 .5132013092197.1

-3DEFENDANT GOOGLE'S CONSOLIDATED SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF GOOGLE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: GOOGLE'S ENTITLEMENT TO SAFE HARBOR UNDER 17 U.S.C. 6 512(b) FOR ITS CACHING FEATURE

document ."). P10's cited evidence ( including the opinions of Norman Zada as to how Google ' s cache operates) is irrelevant to the identified fact. In the vast majority of 10. cases , Google's cache made available to users will be refreshed approximately every few weeks . Brougher Dec. 16.

6
7

AmErm - - I

GOOGLE ' S REPLY
P 10's cited evidence (regarding a few stray outliers ) does not actually dispute the identified fact . Most of P10's response is improper legal argument and should be stricken . See Scheduling Order at 6:5 -- 6 ("No legal argument should be set forth in this document."). P10's cited evidence ( including the opinions of Norman Zada as to how Google's cache operates ) is irrelevant to the identified fact.

15

11. Googgle's cache available to users provides Internet users with several important benefits, including allowing users to view the text of pages when the users cannot access them directly, allowing users to determine how a particular web page has changed over time and allowing users to more readily determine why a particular page was responsive to their query, but highlighting the terms of the query. Brougher Dec. in 10-12.

GOOGLE ' S REPLY Most of P 10's response is improper legal argument and should be stricken. See Scheduling Order at 6:5-6 ("No legal argument should be set forth in this document ."). P10's cited evidence ( including the opinions of Norman Zada as to the value of Google ' s cache feature) does not support P 10's claim and is irrelevant to 27 28
01980 ,51320/3092197.1

the identified fact.

DEFENDANT GOOGLE'S CONSOLIDATED SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF GOOGLE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE. GOOGLE'S ENTITLEMENT TO SAFE HARBOR UNDER 17 U.S.C. S 512(b) FOR ITS CACHING FEATURE

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
GOOGLE'S REPLY

10 P 10's cited evidence does not actually dispute the identified fact. Most of 11 P10's response is improper legal argument and should be stricken. See Scheduling 12 Order at 6:5-6 ("No legal argument should be set forth in this document.") P10's 13 cited evidence (including the opinions of Norman Zada as to how Google's cache 14 operates) is irrelevant to and does not actually address the identified fact. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
cited evidence (including the opinions of Norman Zada as to how Google's cache P10's response is improper legal argument and should be stricken. See Scheduling Order at 6:5-6 ("No legal argument should be set forth in this document.") P 10's

The material in Google's 13. cache is transmitted from third p arty websites to Google at Google s request . Brougher Dec. ¶4.

GOOGLE'S REPLY
P 10's cited evidence does not actually dispute the identified fact. Most of

24
operates) is irrelevant to and does not actually address the identified fact, nor does it

25 26 27 28
01980 . 5132013092197.1

support P 10's claim.

Google's storage of the web 14. page text in its cache is carried out through an automated technical
DEFENDANT GOOGLE'S CONSOLIDATED SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF GOOGLE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: GOOGLE'S ENTITLEMENT TO SAFE HARBOR UNDER 17 U.S.C. S 512(b) FOR ITS CACHING FEATURE

I 2 3 4

process . Brougher Dec. ¶ 6.

GOOGLE ' S REPLY
P 10 has not cited any contrary evidence disputing this fact . It remains

5 uncontroverted. 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 GOOGLE ' S REPLY P 10 has not cited any contrary evidence disputing this fact . The fact remains
Google provides users with 15. the option of selecting a link to the "cached" copy of the web page through an automat i c technical process , as opposed to a direct link to the website itself, for the purpose of making the material available to users who wish to access it after it is initially transmitted by third-party websites . Brougher Dec. ¶ 6.

15 uncontroverted. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
01980 . 5132013092197.1

16. Google's web robot obtains copies of the web pages from originating websites without modification of their content. Brougher Dec. ¶ 6.

GOOGLE ' S REPLY P10's cited evidence does not actually dispute the identified fact. Most of P 10's response is improper legal argument and should be stricken . See Scheduling Order at 6 : 5-6 ("No legal argument should be set forth in this document .") P10's cited evidence ( including the opinions of Norman Zada as to how Google ' s cache operates ) is irrelevant to and does not actually address the identified fact, nor does it support P10's claim. 17. If webmasters of the

DEFENDANT GOOGLE'S CONSOLIDATED SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF GOOGLE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: GOOGLE'S ENTITLEMENT TO SAFE
HARBOR UNDER 17 U.S.C. 6 512(b) FOR ITS CACHING FEATURE

concerning refreshing , reloading, or other updating of the material, Google complies with those rules. Brougher Dec. ¶ 13.

GOOGLE ' S REPLY
5

P 10 has not cited any contrary evidence disputing this fact . It remains uncontroverted.
18. Google does not interfere with any technology used by a website to collect information directly from users visiting that website. Haahr Dec. ¶ 19.

6

GOOGLE'S REPLY P 10 has not cited any contrary evidence disputing this fact . It remains uncontroverted.
19. Google's cache made available to users does not alter the mechanisms for access to copyrighted material established by webmasters , such as payment or password protection. I-aahr Dec. ¶ 20.

GOOGLE ' S REPLY P 10's cites no evidence to support its claimed dispute of the identified fact. P 10's response is improper legal argument and should be stricken . See Scheduling Order at 6:5-6 ("No legal argument should be set forth in this document."). 20. If a valid notice of infringement under § 512(c)(3) is received , it is Google' s policy to respond expeditious l y to remove or disable access to the infringing material. Declaration of Shantal Rands Poovala in Support of Google's Motion for Nummary Judgment Re: Google's Entitlement to Safe Harbor Under 17 U.S. C. § 512 ("Poovala Dec.") ¶5.

25 26 27 28
01980 .5132013092197,1

DEFENDANT GOOGLE'S CONSOLIDATED SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF GOOGLE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: GOOGLE'S ENTITLEMENT TO SAFE
HARBOR UNDER 17 U.S.C. S 512(b) FOR ITS CACHING FEATURE

DEFENDANT GOOGLE'S CONSOLIDATED SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF GOOGLE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: GOOGLE'S ENTITLEMENT TO SAFE

HARBOR UNDER 17 U.S.C. 6 512(b) FOR ITS CACHING FEATURE

I 2 3 4 5 6 7

27 28
01980 . 5 1 3 2013 0 92 1 97.1

DEFENDANT GOOGLE'S CONSOLIDATED SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF GOOGLE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: GOOGLE'S ENTITLEMENT TO SAFE HARBOR UNDER 17 U.S.C. 6 5I2(b) FOR ITS CACHING FEATURE

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 .18 19 20 21 22 23 24

GOOGLE'S REPLY
P10's cited evidence does not actually dispute the identified fact. Most of

25 P10's response is improper legal argument and should be stricken. See Scheduling 26 Order at 6:5-6. P10's cited evidence (including the opinions of Norman Zada, Dean 27 Hoffman, C.J. Newton, Les Schwartz and Margaret Jane Eden, and what Google
01980 .5132013092197.1

28 allegedly has done in response to specific P 10 notices) is irrelevant to the identified
DEFENDANT GOOGLE'S CONSOLIDATED SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF GOOGLE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: GOOGLE'S ENTITLEMENT TO SAFE HARBOR UNDER 17 U.S.C. 6 512(bl FOR ITS CACHING FEATURE

I fact because it is directed to how Google has implemented its DMCA policy - not 2 whether Google has such a policy. Additionally, Google's DMCA tracking 3 spreadsheets speak for themselves. Poovala Dec. Ex. II. The fact that Google 4 received a few poor-quality faxes (including several from P10) is irrelevant to its 5 DMCA policy. P10's claim that 6 is unsupported by

7 both P10's and Google's evidence. Poovala Dec, T¶ 57-64, Exhs. S-V; Zada Dec. at 8 20:16-26 & 23:27-28. PI O's claim that 9
is unsupported by the evidence it cites, and

10 incorrect. See Rebuttal Kassabian Dec. Ex. B; Rebuttal Poovala Dec. ¶ 8. P 10's 11 claim that
is

12 unsupported by the evidence it cites and irrelevant to Google's policy of responding 13 expeditiously to DMCA notices, nor does the DMCA impose specific time periods 14 for recordkeeping. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
01980 . 51320 /3092197.1

Google's DMCA Policy and Procedure for Web Search and Cache

Google has developed and 21. maintains a DMCA policy and procedure for processing complaints received under the DMCA regarding Web Search. Poovala Dec. ¶ 5, Ex. B.

DEFENDANT GOOGLE'S CONSOLIDATED SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF GOOGLE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: GOOGLE'S ENTITLEMENT TO SAFE
HARBOR UNDER 17 U.S.C. 6 512(b) FOR ITS CACHING FEATURE

I 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
0l 980 . 51320/3G92197.1

DEFENDANT GOOGLE'S CONSOLIDATED SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF GOOGLE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: GOOGLE'S ENTITLEMENT TO SAFE HARBOR UNDER 17 U.S.C. S 512(b) FOR ITS CACHING FEATURE

I 2 3 4
5

6 7 8 9

27

28
01980 .5132013092197.1

-13-.. DEFENDANT GOOGLE'S CONSOLIDATED SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF GOOGLE ' S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: GOOGLE ' S ENTITLEMENT TO SAFE HARBOR UNDER 17 U.S.C. & 512(b) FOR ITS CACHING FEATURE

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
01980 , 51320/3092197. I

DEFENDANT GOOGLE'S CONSOLIDATED SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF GOOGLE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: GOOGLE'S ENTITLEMENT TO SAFE
HARBOR UNDER 17 U.S.C. & 512(b) FOR ITS CACHING FEATURE

2 3 4 5 6 7

GOOGLE'S REPLY P10's cited evidence does not actually dispute the identified fact. Most of P10's response is improper legal argument and should be stricken. See Scheduling Order at 6:5-6 ("No legal argument should be set forth in this document."). P10's cited evidence (including the opinions of Norman Zada, Dean Hoffinan, C.J. Newton, Les Schwartz and Margaret Jane Eden, and what Google allegedly has done in response to specific P 10 notices) is irrelevant to the identified fact because it is directed to how Google has implemented its DMCA policy - not whether Google has such a policy. Additionally, Google's DMCA tracking spreadsheets speak for themselves. Poovala Dec. Ex. 11; Rebuttal Declaration of Rachel Herrick Kassabian at ¶ 2. The fact that Google received a few poor-quality faxes (including several from P 10) is irrelevant to its qualification for DMCA safe harbor. Perfect 10's statements regarding chillingeffects.org also are irrelevant.
22. When Google suppresses a web page from appearing in Web Search results, it automatically prevents all cached links to that page from appearing in search results as well. Poovala Dec. ¶ 10.

27 28
01M .51320/3092197.1

DEFENDANT GOOGLE'S CONSOLIDATED SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF GOOGLE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: GOOGLE'S ENTITLEMENT TO SAFE HARBOR UNDER 17 U.S.G. b 512(b) FOR ITS CACHING FEATURE

I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

claimed infringement . Declaration of Rachel Herrick Kassabian in Support of Google's Motion for Summary Judgment Re: Go^ogle's Entitlement to Safe Harbor Under Dec."), Ex. G ( P 10's Responses to Requests for Admission); Poovala Dec. ¶ 3, Ex. A.
17 U.S.C. § 512 ("Kassabian

Google publishes the 24. information required for DMCA complaints related to Web Search at httpp ://www. oogle . com/dmca.htm 1. Poovala Dec. ¶ 5, Ex. B.

GOOGLE ' S REPLY P 10's cited evidence does not actually dispute the identified fact. That

16 Google has an additional fax number on file with the Copyright Office is irrelevant 17 to whether Google publishes the information required to submit a DMCA notice on 18 Google's website. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
03980 . 53320/3092197.1

It is Google's policy to 25. respond expeditiousy to notices of

co yrI ht infringement direct to We b Searc h . P oova l a D ec. ¶ 5 .

IMF

-16DEFENDANT GOOGLE'S CONSOLIDATED SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF GOOGLE ' S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: GOOGLE ' S ENTITLEMENT TO SAFE
HARBOR UNDER 17 U.S.C. 8 512 ( b) FOR ITS CACHIN G FEATURE

I

2 3 4 5 6 7

GOOGLE'S REPLY
P 10's cited evidence does not actually dispute the identified fact. Most of P 10's response is improper legal argument and should be stricken, See Scheduling Order at 6:5-6. P 10's cited evidence (including the opinions of Norman Zada, Dean Hoffman, C.J. Newton, Les Schwartz and Margaret Jane Eden, and what Google allegedly has done in response to specific P10 notices) is irrelevant to the identified fact because it is directed to how Google has implemented its DMCA policy - not 22 whether Google has such a policy. Additionally, Google's DMCA tracking 23 spreadsheets speak for themselves. Poovala Dec. Ex, II. The fact that Google 24 received a few poor-quality faxes (including several from P 10) is irrelevant to its 25 DMCA policy. P 10's claim that " 26
is unsupported by

27
both P10's and Google's evidence. Poovala Dec. ¶¶ 57-64, Exhs. S-V; Zada Dec. at

28
01980 .51320/3092197.1

-17DEFENDANT GOOGLE'S CONSOLIDATED SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF GOOGLE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: GOOGLE'S ENTITLEMENT TO SAFE HARBOR UNDER 17 U.S.C. S 512(b) FOR ITS CACHING FEATURE

I 20:16-26 & 23:27-28. P 10's claim that 2
is unsupported by the evidence it cites, and incorrect. See Rebuttal Kassabian Dec. Ex. B; Rebuttal Poovala Dec. ¶ 8. P 10's

claim that

is

unsupported by the evidence it cites and irrelevant to Google's policy of responding expeditiously to DMCA notices, nor does the DMCA impose specific time periods 7 for recordkeeping. .8
For a Web Search DMCA 26. complaint, Google directs complainants to identify the copyrighted work infringed by providing a brief description of it and the complete URL or other location where the work can be found. Poovala Dec. ¶ 7.

GOOGLE'S REPLY P 10's cited evidence does not actually dispute the identified fact, but rather is argument regarding what information P10 provided in response to Google's instructions, and thus is irrelevant. See Scheduling Order at 6:5-6. Both P10 and Google point to the same "documentary support" - Google's published DMCA policy for Web Search - which speaks for itself. For a Web Search DMCA 27. complaint, Google directs complainants to provide the complete URL at which the allegedly infringing material is located and the Web Search query that directly links to that web page. Poovala Dec. ¶ 8, Ex. B.

27 28
01980.51320/3092197.1

DEFENDANT GOOGLE'S CONSOLIDATED SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF GOOGLE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: GOOGLE'S ENTITLEMENT TO SAFE HARBOR UNDER 17 U.S.C. 6 512(b) FOR ITS CACHING FEATURE

.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 GOOGLE' S REPLY P 10's cited evidence does not actually dispute the identified fact, but rather is

8 argument regarding P 10's interpretation of Google's Web Search DMCA 9 instructions, and thus is irrelevant. See Scheduling Order at 6:5-6. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
01980 .5 1 3 2013 092 1 9 7.1

28. Unless provided with the necessary information from the copyright owner, Google has no way of knowing which uses the owner regards to be infringing, as opposed to those uses that are licensed, a fair use, or otherwise acceptable to the owner. Poovala Dec. ¶ 15.

GOOGLE'S REPLY
P 10's cited evidence does not actually dispute the identified fact-that
Google needs the required information from copyright owners. P 10's improper and circular legal argument should be stricken. See Scheduling Order at 6:5-6.

29. For Web Search DMCA complaints, incomplete URLs containing improper ellipses, misspellings, or extra spaces, hinder Google's ability to locate the material in uestion. Poovala Dec. ¶ 9; Haahr Dec. ¶ 4.

DEFENDANT GOOGLE'S CONSOLIDATED SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF GOOGLE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: GOOGLE'S ENTITLEMENT TO SAFE HARBOR UNDER 17 U.S,C. 6 512fb1 FOR ITS CACHING FEATURE

2 3

GOOGLE'S REPLY P 10 has cited no contrary evidence disputing this fact. P 10's improper legal argument should be stricken . See Scheduling Order at 6:5-6. P10's cited evidence ( including the opinions of Norman Zada and Sean Chumura regarding how Google should process DMCA notices ) is irrelevant to the identified fact, and does not support it in any event. For Web Search DMCA 30. complaints, URLs which are not live on the web, not indexed by Google, are excluded from search results, cannot be blocked because they already do not appear in Web Search results. Poovala Dec. ¶ 9; Haahr Dec. 14.

GOOGLE'S REPLY
P10 has cited no contrary evidence disputing this fact. P10's improper legal argument should be stricken. See Scheduling Order at 6:5-6. P10's cited evidence (including the opinions of Norman Zada regarding Google's DMCA processing and other Google programs not at issue in this lawsuit) is irrelevant to the identified fact, and in any event does not support it. P10's opinion that Google should block sites that are not even indexed or linked to by Google is nonsensical and irrelevant.

31. 27 28
01980 .51320/3092197.1

Google has a team of

em to ees charged with processing DMCA removal requests. Poovala Dec. ¶ 11.
Q.-

DEFENDANT GOOGLE'S CONSOLIDATED SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF GOOGLE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: GOOGLE'S ENTITLEMENT TO SAFE

HARBOR UNDER 17 U.S.C. 6 512fb1 FOR ITS CACHING FEATURE

2 3

GOOGLE'S REPLY P10 has cited no contrary evidence disputing this fact. P10's improper

4 legal argument should be stricken. See Scheduling Order at 6:5-6. 5 6 7
32. If a DMCA notice for Web Search does not contain the required information , Google notifies the complainant and requests additional information. Poovala Dec. T 13.

GOOGLE' S REPLY P 10's cited evidence does not actually dispute the identified fact, nor does P 10 dispute receiving the Google communications requesting additional information and DMCA-compliant notices. Poovala Dec., Exhs. S-EE. P10's cited evidence (including the opinions of Norman Zada with respect to the sufficiency of Google's communications) is irrelevant to the identified fact. P 10's improper legal argument should be stricken. See Scheduling Order at 6:5-6.
33. Google verifies claims of infringement by comparing the copyright work claimed to be inffrringed to the allegedly infringing URL identified in the DMCA notice. Poovala Dec. ¶ 14.

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
01980 .5132013092197.1

EI
DEFENDANT GOOGLE'S CONSOLIDATED SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF GOOGLE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: GOOGLE'S ENTITLEMENT TO SAFE HARBOR UNDER 17 U.S.C. S 512(b) FOR ITS CACHING FEATURE

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

.

GOOGLE'S REPLY

P 10's cited evidence (including the deposition testimony of Mr. MacGillivray and the Declaration of Mr. Botelho) does not actually dispute-or even support23 the identified fact. P 10's cited evidence (including the opinions and speculations of 24 Norman Zada regarding how Google processed P1 O's notices, Google's DMCA 25 instructions, what Google really needs to process a DMCA notice, and the adequacy 26 of the Group C Notices) is irrelevant to the identified fact. P 10's improper legal 27 28
01980.51320/3092197.1

DEFENDANT GOOGLE'S CONSOLIDATED SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF GOOGLE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: GOOGLE'S ENTITLEMENT TO SAFE
HARBOR UNDER 17 U.S.C. 5 512(b) FOR ITS CACHING FEATURE

1 argument should be stricken . See Scheduling Order at 6 :5-6. Further, Google's 2 DMCA instructions speak for themselves. 3 4 5 6 7 Google blocks infringing . 34. web page URLs from appearing in Google search results, includin the cache feature of Web Sear' Haahr Dec. ¶¶ 6, 77 9; Poovala Dec. T¶ 10, 1'4, 24.

19 20 21 GOOGLE'S REPLY P 10's cited evidence (including the opinions of Norman Zada, Dean

22 Hoffman, C.J. Newton, Les Schwartz and Margaret Jane Eden, and P 10's claims as 23 to what Google allegedly has done in response to specific P10 notices) does not 24 actually dispute the identified fact. P10's cited evidence also is irrelevant to the 25 identified fact and is contradicted by P 10's witnesses' own testimony. P 10's 26 improper legal argument should be stricken. See Scheduling Order at 6:5-6. 27 Google's DMCA tracking spreadsheets and its engineering files confirming the
01980.51320/3092197.1

28 removal of infringing URLs speak for themselves, as do P 10's notices. Poovala
_ -23DEFENDANT GOOGLE'S CONSOLIDATED SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF GOOGLE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: GOOGLE'S ENTITLEMENT TO SAFE
HARBOR UNDER 17 U.S.C. & 512(b) FOR ITS CACHING FEATURE

Dec. Ex. Il; Haahr Dec. Ex. 1. P 10's statements regarding chillingeffects.org also are irrelevant.
If Goggle received a 35. counter-notification as a result of a DMCA removal and the original complainant responds within ten days and informs Go-ogle it has filed a lawsuit, the URL will remain blocked from search results. Poovala Dec. ¶ 18.

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
01980 , 5132013092197.1

Google's Web Search 36. service has no subscribers or account holders. Haahr Dec. ^ 17.

_24-

DEFENDANT GOOGLE'S CONSOLIDATED SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF GOOGLE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: GOOGLE'S ENTITLEMENT TO SAFE HARBOR UNDER 17 U.S.C. 6 5I2(b) FOR ITS CACHING FEATURE

-

I

2 3 4 5

6
7 8 GOOGLE ' S REPLY P10's cited evidence does not actually dispute the identified fact. P10's

9 improper legal argument should be stricken . See Scheduling Order at 6:5-6. P10's 10 cited evidence (including the opinions of Norman Zada) is irrelevant to the 11 identified fact because it discusses Google ' s repeat infringer policies for other 12 Google services --- not whether Web Search and Image Search have account holders 13 or subscribers. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
01980 . 5 1 3 3013 092 1 9 7.1

37. Webmasters do not "sign up" to have their websites listed in Google's organic search results. Haahr Dec. 17.

1

GOOGLE ' S REPLY P10 has not cited any contrary evidence disputing this fact . It remains uncontroverted. Websites are included in 38. Google's organic search results if they were crawled by the Googlebot and if they are relevant to users' queries . Haahr Dec. ¶ 17.

GOOGLE'S REPLY
P 10 has cited no contrary evidence disputing this fact . P 10's improper legal argument should be stricken . See Scheduling Order at 6:5-6. P I Q ' s cited evidence ( including the opinions of Norman Zada as to whether Google's search
DEFENDANT GOOGLE ' S CONSOLIDATED SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF GOOGLE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: GOOGLE ' S ENTITLEMENT TO SAFE HARBOR UNDER 17 U.S.C. 6 5I2(b ) FOR ITS CACHING FEATURE

^25-

1 results list " relevant" sites ) is irrelevant because the specific results for a search for

2
3 4 5 6

"Jamike Hansen" have no bearing on the identified fact. 39. Google has repeat infringer policies for its products and services with account holders, such as AdSense and Blogger. Poovala Dec. ¶ 36.

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
01980 . 51320/3092197.1

GOOGLE ' S REPLY
DEFENDANT GOOGLE'S CONSOLIDATED SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF GOOGLE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: GOOGLE 'S ENTITLEMENT TO SAFE HARBOR UNDER 17 U.S.C. 6 512(b) FOR ITS CACHING FEATURE

_-2.6-

1

P 10's cited evidence does not actually dispute the identified fact. P 10's improper legal argument should be stricken. See Scheduling Order at 6:5-6. P10's cited evidence (including the opinions of Norman Zada and Sheena Chou regarding Google's DMCA processing efforts) is irrelevant to the identified fact because it is directed to allegations regarding how Google has implemented its repeat infringer policies - not whether Google has such policies for services with account holders

7 and subscribers. Additionally, Google's published repeat infringer policies and
DMCA tracking spreadsheets for Blogger and AdSense speak for themselves. Poovala Dec. Exhs. F, G, J, K, II; Rebuttal Pooval Dec. Ex. C.

40. Google does not actively prevent copyright owners from collecting information needed to issue notifications of copyright infringement under the DMC Poovala Dec. T 39.

25 26 27 28
01980 .5132013092197.1 2Z

DEFENDANT GOOGLE'S CONSOLIDATED SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF GOOGLE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: GOOGLE'S ENTITLEMENT TO SAFE
HARBOR UNDER 17 U.S.C. 6 512(b) FOR ITS CACHING FEATURE

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
01980.51320/3092197.1
-2,8-

GOOGLE'S REPLY P 10 has cited no contrary evidence disputing this fact. P 10's improper legal argument should be stricken. See Scheduling Order at 6:5-6. P10's cited evidence (including the opinions of Norman Zada, Dean Hoffman, C.J. Newton, Les Schwartz and Margaret Jane Eden) does not actually support the identified fact, and is irrelevant to it. Google's published DMCA instructions speak for themselves. Group A: The 2001 Notices
During discovery in this 41. action, P10 produced 17 claimed DMCA notices dated in 2001, all of which were dated more than three years prior to P10's filing of this action. Kassabian-Dec. ¶ 13, Exhs. 1 -L17.

1 The Group A Notices i nclude e-mail communications from P10 to Google dated May 11,200 1, May 15 , 2001 (bearing control numbers PG DMCA00100011, PG DMCA0012 - 0015 and PG DMCA0016-0018 ), May 18,2001 ( bearing control numbers PG DMCA0019-002T , PG DMCA0022 - 24, and PG DMCA002525 0028), May 21, 2001 (bearing control numbers PG DMCAOE9 - 0032, PG DMCA00330036, and PG DMCA0037 - 0040- )-, and May 22 , 2001 (bearing control numbers PG DMCAO0T11 - 0045, PG DMCA0046 - 0050 , and PG DMCA0051-0055 ), May 24, 2001, June 26 , 2001 and June 29, 2001, and July 6 , 200 1. Kassabian Dec. Exhs. L1L17.
DEFENDANT GOOGLE'S CONSOLIDATED SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF GOOGLE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: GOOGLE'S ENTITLEMENT TO SAFE
HARBOR UNDER 17 U.S.C. & 512(b) FOR ITS CACHING FEATURE

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

GOOGLE'S REPLY P10 does not dispute the identified fact, so it remains uncontroverted. P10's improper legal argument should be stricken. See Scheduling Order at 6:5-6. 42. P 10 has indicated that its suit is not based on the DMCA notices purportedly sent to Google in 2001. Kassabian Dec. 13, Ex. B.

GOOGLE'S REPLY 26 27 28
01980 .51320/3092197.1

P 10's cited evidence (����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������mber in P 10 Magazine to identify the copyrighted work infringed at one URL in one of its Group B Notices is irrelevant to the question of whether that notice, or any of the other Group B Notices , was sufficient in its entirety. 46. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
01980.5132013092197. k

None of the Group B

Notices properly identified the location of the allegedly infrin g ing material . Poovala Dec . ¶¶ 41-47, Exhs . L1-L48; Kassablan Dec.

¶ 2, Ex. A.

GOOGLE'S REPLY
DEFENDANT GOOGLE'S CONSOLIDATED SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF GOOGLE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: GOOGLE'S ENTITLEMENT TO SAFE HARBOR UNDER 17 U.S.C. $ 512(b) FOR ITS CACHING FEATURE

I

P 10's cited evidence does not actually dispute the identified fact with respect

2 to all but one of the alleged infringements in the Group B Notices, and even as to 3

that infringement, mis characterizes the underlying notice, which speaks for itself.

4 P 10's cited evidence (including the opinions of Norman Zada, Scan Chumura, 5

David O'Connor, and Bennett McPhatter regarding (1) Google's alleged ability to

6 process P10's notices and (2) Google's DMCA instructions) is irrelevant to the 7

identified fact because it is directed to Google's processing of P 10's notices, not

8 whether those notices included the referenced information. P10's improper legal 9 argument should be stricken. See Scheduling Order at 6:5-6. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
01980 , 51320/3092197.1 -3Z

P10's notices dated May 31, 47. June 1, June 4, June 16, June 28, July 6, July 11, and July 19, 2004 do not identify a specific copyrighted work claimed to be in Winged for one or more of the allegedly infringing URLs

included in that communication. Poovala Dec. ¶¶ 41,44, Exhs. L1L8.

DEFENDANT GOOGLE'S CONSOLIDATED SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF GOOGLE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: GOOGLE'S ENTITLEMENT TO SAFE HARBOR UNDER 17 U.S.C. 8 512(b) FOR ITS CACHING FEATURE

2 3 GOOGLE' S REPLY P 10's cited evidence does not actually dispute the identified fact. P 10's improper legal argument should be stricken. See Scheduling Order at 6:5-6. P 10's cited evidence (including the opinions of Norman Zada regarding (1) what Google 8 did or should have done in response to specific P10 notices and (2) Google's DMCA 9 instructions) is irrelevant to the identified fact because it is directed to Google's 10 alleged processing efforts, not the adequacy or content of P10's notices. P10 does 11 not dispute that some portion of its Group B Notices did not provide the identified 12 information. Google's published DMCA instructions and P 10's notices speak for 13 themselves. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 GOOGLE'S REPLY P 10 does not dispute the identified fact. It remains uncontroverted. P 10's 48. P10 ' s notices dated May 31, June 1, June 4, and June 16,2004 do not identify the Google search query used to locate the allegedly infringing material for one or more of the allegedly infringing URLs included in that communication. Poovala Dec 14 1 , Exhs . Ll-L4.

22 improper legal argument should be stricken. See Scheduling Order at 6:5-6. 23 24 25 26 27 28
01980 . 51320 /3092197.1

49. P 10's notices dated June 16, June 28, July 6, July 11, July 19, October 11, November 2, November 8, November 15, November 16, November 18, November 26, December 1, December 9, December 21, December 27, December 29, and December 31, 2004, January 3, January 16, January 21,
an
0 aa
DEFENDANT GOOGLE'S CONSOLIDATED SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF GOOGLE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: GOOGLE'S ENTITLEMENT TO SAFE HARBOR UNDER 17 U.S.C. 6 512(b) FOR ITS CACHING FEATURE

I

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

February 7, February 11, February 17, February 23, March 6, March 27, April 3, April 3, April 11, May 1, May 7, June 12, June 19, July 16, July 26, and August 30, 2005 list multiple pages in Perfect 10 Magazine as the copyrighted work claimed to be infringed at one or more of the allegedly infringing URLs included in that communication. Poovala Dec. ¶T 41, 44, Exhs. L4L42.

GOOGLE'S REPLY
P 10's cited evidence does not actually dispute the identified fact. P i 0's

14 improper legal argument should be stricken. See Scheduling Order at 6:5-6. P10's 15 cited evidence (including the opinions of Norman Zada regarding (1) what Google 16 did or should have done in response to specific P 10 notices and (2) P 10's 17 explanation of why it prepared its Group B Notices as it did) is irrelevant to the 18 identified fact because it does not dispute the referenced content of P10's notices. 19 P 10 does not dispute that some portion of its Group B Notices did not provide the 20 identified information. Google's published DMCA instructions and P 10's notices 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
01980 . 51320/3092197.1

speak for themselves. 50. P10's notices dated June 28, July 6, July 11, July 19, October 11, November 2, November 8, November 15, November 16, November 18, November 26, December 1, December 9, December 21, December 27, December 29, and
December 31, 2004, January 3, January 16, January 21, January 25, February 3, February 7, February 11,

l';-

-3 6-

DEFENDANT GOOGLE'S CONSOLIDATED SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF GOOGLE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: GOOGLE'S ENTITLEMENT TO SAFE HARBOR UNDER 17 U.S.C. 6 512(bl FOR ITS CACHING FEATURE

--

2 3 4
5

March 6, April 11, May 1, May 7, June 12 , July 16, December 7, December 22, and
December 23,2005 list "amyweber . net" as the copyrighted work claimed to be in Inged at one or more of the allegedly infringing URLs included in that communication. Poovala Dec. ¶ 41 , 44, Exhs. L5L31, L3 5 -L3 8,140, L44-L46.

GOOGLE'S REPLY P10 does not dispute the identified fact, and in fact admits it. P10's improper legal argument should be stricken. See Scheduling Order at 6:5-6.
51. P 10's notices dated January 21, February 3, February 7, February 11, February 17, February 23, March 6, March 27, April 11, May 7, June 12, June 19, July 26, August 30, September 27, December 7, and December 22, and December 23, 2005, February 13,2006, and April 24, 2007 list "perfectl0.com as the

copyrighted work claimed to be 1
infringed at one or more of the allegedly infringing URLs included in that communication. Poovala Dec. 41, 44,

Exhs. L24, L2,17 L3 2, L35, L37L39, L41-L48.

27 28
01980.51320/3092197.1

SUPPORT OF GOOGLE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: GOOGLE'S ENTITLEMENT TO SAFE HARBOR UNDER 17 U.S.C. 6 512(b) FOR ITS CACHING FEATURE

-37_ DEFENDANT GOOGLE'S CONSOLIDATED SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN

1 2

GOOGLE'S REPLY
P 10 does not dispute the identified fact, and in fact admits it. P 10's improper

3 legal argument should be stricken. See Scheduling Order at 6.5-6. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
019a0 . 51320/3092197,1

52. P 10's notice dated January 16, 2005 lists "Perfect 10 DVD" as the copyrighted work claimed to be infringed at one or more of the allegedly infringing URLs included in that
communication. Poovala Dec. ¶j 41, 44, Ex. L23.

GOOGLE'S REPLY

P 10 does not dispute the identified fact. P 10's improper legal argument should be stricken. See Scheduling Order at 6:5-6. 53. P 10's notices dated
April 11 and December 7, 2005 list "Perfect 10 Model Boxing DVD" as the copyrighted work claimed to be infringed at one or more of the allegedly infringing URLs included in that communication. Poovala Dec. 1141, 44, Ex. L35, L44.

54. At many of the web page URLs identified in P10' s Group B Notices, multiple images were displayed, but P 10 did not identify which images infringed its co yrights. Poovala Dec. 41, 45, Ex. L.

28
-38-

DEFENDANT GOOGLE'S CONSOLIDATED SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF GOOGLE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE; GOOGLE'S ENTITLEMENT TO SAFE HARBOR UNDER 17 U.S.C. 6 512(b) FOR ITS CACHING FEATURE

I

2
3

4
5

6
7

GOOGLE ' S REPLY P 10's cited evidence does not actually dispute the identified fact. P 10's improper legal argument should be stricken . See Scheduling Order at 6:5-6. P 10's cited evidence ( including the opinions of Norman Zada regarding how Google processed P10's notices and P10's explanation of why it prepared the notices the way it did) is irrelevant to the identified fact because it does not dispute the contents 25 26 27 28
01980 . 51320/3092197,1

of the notices themselves. 55. ' P10 does not claim that the entirety of "perfect l0.com" was infringed at any of the URLs in P 10's Group B Notices. Kassabian Dec. ¶ 10,
_,

DEFENDANT GOOGLE'S CONSOLIDATED SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF GOOGLE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: GOOGLE'S ENTITLEMENT TO SAFE HARBOR UNDER 17 U.S.C. 6 512 ( b) FOR ITS CACHING FEATURE

1 2

Requests for Admission).

GOOGLE'S REPLY P 10's cited evidence does not dispute Google's cited evidence, nor could it, since P10 cannot contradict its own prior sworn admissions to avoid summary 7 judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b) ("A matter admitted under this rule is 8 conclusively established unless the court, on motion, permits the admission to be 9 withdrawn or amended."); School Dist. No. IJ, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, 10 Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1264 (9th Cir. 1993) (upholding lower court grant of summary 11 judgment despite affidavit that contradicted prior interrogatory response). P10's improper legal argument should be stricken. See Scheduling Order at 6:5-6. 56. There are thousands of ima gg es viewable on
ertectl0 . com. Kassabian Dec. 9, Ex. H ( Zada Declaration).

57. P10 does not claim that every ima e in the multiple-page sectzons of Perfect 10 Magazine cited in its Group B Notices was infringed at any of the URLs cited therein. Kassabian Dec. ¶ 10, Ex. I (P10`s Responses to Requests for Admission).

27 28
0l 9&0.5132013092197.1

-40_ DEFENDANT GOOGLE'S CONSOLIDATED SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN
SUPPORT OF GOOGLE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: GOOGLE'S ENTITLEMENT TO SAFE HARBOR UNDER 17 U.S.C. 8 512(b) FOR ITS CACHING FEATURE

2 3 4

GOOGLE ' S REPLY
P 10's cited evidence does not dispute Google's cited evidence, nor could it, since P10 cannot contradict its own prior sworn admissions to avoid summary judgment. See Fed. R . Civ. P. 36(b); School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255 , 1264 (9th Cir . 1993). P10 ' s claims are not supported by 9 the cited evidence , nor are they relevant to the identified fact. P 10 ' s improper legal 10 argument should be stricken . See Scheduling Order at 6:5-6. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 GOOGLE'S REPLY P 10's cited evidence does not actually dispute the identified fact. P 10's

24 improper legal argument should be stricken. See Scheduling Order at 6:5-6. P10's 25 cited evidence (including the opinions of Norman Zada and Sean Chumura 26 regarding P10's attempt to justify why it prepared its Group B Notices the way it 27
0 i 980 . 5132013092197.1

28

_41DEFENDANT GOOGLE'S CONSOLIDATED SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF GOOGLE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: GOOGLE'S ENTITLEMENT TO SAFE
HARBOR UNDER 17 U.S.C. 6 512(b) FOR ITS CACHING FEATURE

I

did) is irrelevant to the contents of the notices themselves. P 10's claims are

2 contradicted by its own DMCA notices, which speak for themselves. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 3 The Group C Notices include P 10's notices dated December 9,2005, March 20,2007 , June 28 ,2007, July 2, 2007, July 12,2007, July 31,2007, October 16, 26 2007, December 13,2007, January 24, 2008, March 17,2008, July 9, 2008, 27 November 26, 2008 , November 27, 2008, April 24, 2009 , May 7, 2009, May 30, 2009 , June 4,2009, and June 13 , 2009. Poovala Dec. Exhs. NI-N 18. 28 25
01980 , 5132013092197.E
-4',

Each of P 10' s Groupp B 59. Notices cited one or more URLs that displayed multiple images, with no specification as to which image was at issue. Poovala Dec. ¶¶ 41, 45, 46, Exhs. L and M. GOOGLE'S REPLY P 10's cited evidence does not actually dispute this fact. 60. P 10's notices dated June 28, July 6 and July 11, 2004 contained identical lists of allegedly infringing URLs, but P 10 did not disclose this fact to Google when submitting them . Poovala Dec. ¶¶ 41, 45, Exhs. L5, L6, L7.

GOOGLE'S REPLY P10's cited evidence does not actually dispute the identified fact . P10's claim that its July 11 , 2004 notice contained 19 pages in addition to the identical list of infringing URLs, does not contradict the identified fact. P 10's improper legal argument should be stricken . See Scheduling Order at 6:5-6. Group C: The DVD and Hard Drive Notices 61. Google's search products do not crawl, index or link to Usenet news servers . Ifaahr Dec. ¶ 14-15.

DEFENDANT GOOGLE'S CONSOLIDATED SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF GOOGLE ' S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: GOOGLE ' S ENTITLEMENT TO SAFE HARBOR UNDER 17 U.S.C. 6 512 ( b) FOR ITS CACHING FEATURE

I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
01980 . 51320/3092197.1

GOOGLE ' S REPLY P 10's cited evidence does not actually dispute the identified fact. P 10's improper legal argument should be stricken . See Scheduling Order at 6 : 5-6. P10's cited evidence ( including the opinions of Norman Zada regarding what Google crawls and indexes) is i rrelevant to the identified fact because it is directed to whether Google crawls other sites or home pages of sites, not whether Google crawls , indexes , or links to Usenet news servers . P10's examples of Google crawling what it has defined as " usenet sites" are not relevant because the examples are web pages on web servers, not Usenet content on Usenet news servers. 62. Google's search products do not crawl, index, or link to password - protected content. Haahr Dec. T 14-15.

DEFENDANT GOOGLE'S CONSOLIDATED SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF GOOGLE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: GOOGLE'S ENTITLEMENT TO SAFE HARBOR UNDER 17 U.S.C. S 512(b) FOR ITS CACHING FEATURE

GOOGLE'S REPLY

P 10's cited evidence does not actually dispute the identified fact. P 10's improper legal argument should be stricken. See Scheduling Order at 6:5-6. P10's cited evidence (including the opinions of Norman Zada regarding what Google crawls and indexes) is irrelevant to the identified fact because it is directed to whether Google crawls and indexes home pages, which is not password-protected content. P 10's examples of crawling password-protected sites are not relevant because they are limited to the homepages of such sites, and not the passwordprotected content.
63. None of the Group C Notices properly identified the copyrighted work allegedl infringed. Poovala Dec. ¶ 48-55, Exhs. N1--N 18; Kassabian ec.

¶ 2, Ex. A.

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
01980 .51320/3092197.1

_ -44DEFENDANT GOOGLE'S CONSOLIDATED SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN
SUPPORT OF GOOGLE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: GOOGLE'S ENTITLEMENT TO SAFE HARBOR UNDER 17 U.S.C. S 512(b) FOR ITS CACHING FEATURE

I 2 3 4 5 6 7

GOOGLE'S REPLY P 10's cited evidence does not actually dispute the identified fact. P 10's improper legal argument should be stricken. See Scheduling Order at 6:5-6. P10's cited evidence (including the opinions of Norman Zada regarding Google's DMCA instructions and how P 10 believes that Google could have processed the Group C notices) does not support P10's claims, and is irrelevant to the contents of Group C Notices, which speak for themselves.
64. None of the Group C Notices properly identified the location of the allegedly infringing material. Poovala Dec. T¶ 48-55, Exhs. N 1-N 18; Kassabian Dec.

¶ 2, Ex. A.

26 27
01980 .51320/30921

8

1

DEFENDANT GOOGLE'S CONSOLIDATED SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF GOOGLE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: GOOGLE'S ENTITLEMENT TO SAFE
HARBOR UNDER 17 U.S.C. S 512(b) FOR ITS CACHING FEATURE

-45 -

I

2 3 4
5

6 7

GOOGLE'S REPLY P 10's cited evidence does not actually dispute the identified fact. P 10's improper legal argument should be stricken. See Scheduling Order at 6:5-6. P10's cited evidence (including the opinions of Norman Zada regarding Google's DMCA instructions and how P10 believes that Google could have processed the Group C notices) does not support P 10's claims, and is irrelevant to the contents of Group C Notices, which speak for themselves. 27 28
01990.51320/3092197.1

65. P 10's notices dated Decem_ber 9, 2005, March 20, ber Aber 16, and

-46HARBOR UNDER 17 U.S.C. S 512(b) FOR ITS CACHING FEATURE

=I

DEFENDANT GOOGLE'S CONSOLIDATED SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF GOOGLE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: GOOGLE'S ENTITLEMENT TO SAFE

2 3 4 5 6 7

December 13, 2007, March 17, and March 26, 2008 and May 7, 2009 complain of alleged infringement on the Usenet. Poovala Dec. ¶¶ 48-49, Exhs. NlN3, N7-N8, Nib, N12, N15.

GOOGLE'S REPLY
P10 does not dispute the identified fact. P10's improper legal argument should be stricken. See Scheduling Order at 6:5-6.

66. The DVDs and hard drive received with P10's notices dated December 9 , 2005, March 20, June 28, October 16, and December 13, 2007 , January 24 March 17, and July 9, 2008, anJ April 24 and May 7, 2009 include raw image files that do not display web pp a gg e URLs . Poovala Dec. 7l 4 g, 53 , 54, Exhs. N3 , N7-N11, 4, , N15. GOOGLE'S REPLY P10's cited evidence does not actually dispute the identified fact. P10's improper legal argument should be stricken. See Scheduling Order at 6:5-6. P10's cited evidence does not support its claim, as none of the examples of raw image files P 10 provides at Exhibit 23 of the Zada Declaration display any URLs. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
01980 . 5132013092197.1

67.

The folder " z p erfect 10

web site" on the hard drive that accompanied P1 O's June 28, 2007 notice contains 367 subfolders and over 15 000 pages of allegedly copyright P 10 images. Poovala Dec. ¶ 48, Ex. N3;-Declaration of Sibrina Khan in Support of Google's Motions for Summary Judgment Re: Entitlement to Safe Harbor Under 17 U.S.C. § 512 ("Khan Dec.") ¶ 20.

FR .

ether th an th e r e feren c e t o

DEFENDANT GOOGLE'S CONSOLIDATED SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN
SUPPORT OF GOOGLE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: GOOGLE'S ENTITLEMENT TO SAFE HARBOR UNDER 17 U.S.C. S 512(6) FOR ITS CACHING FEATURE

2 .3 4
5

the entire folder name "z p erfect 10 web site" on the hard drive that accomp anied P 10's notice dated June 28 , 2007 , P10's notices dated between June 28, 2007 and May 7, 2009 do not identify the copyright works claimed to be infringed. Poovala Dec . T¶ 48, 50, Exhs. N3 -N15.

6

15 16
P 10's cited evidence does not actually dispute the identified fact. P 10's improper legal argument should be stricken . See Scheduling Order at 6: 5-6. P10's cited evidence ( including the opinions of Norman Zada regarding Google's DMCA instructions and how it could have processed the Group C notices) does not support its claim, and is irrelevant to the contents of the Group C Notices, which speak for themselves.

69. P 10's notice dated December 9, 2005 does not identify any cop righted works claimed to be in ringed . Poovala Dec. ¶ 48, Ex. N1. 27
01980 .51320/30921 4 78111 -48-

DEFENDANT GOOGLE'S CONSOLIDATED SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF GOOGLE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: GOOGLE'S ENTITLEMENT TO SAFE HARBOR UNDER 17 U.S.C. 5 512(b) FOR ITS CACHING FEATURE

I 2 3 4
5
No-mop"

6 7 GOOGLE'S REPLY P 10's cited evidence does not actually dispute the identified fact , and in fact admits it. P10 ' s improper legal argument should be stricken . See Scheduling Order at 6:5 - 6. P 10's Group C Notices speak for themselves.
70. P 10's notice dated December 9, 2005 does not identify any web pa e URLs that allegedly infringe P 10's copyrigxhteedlworks. Poovala Dec. 1 48, E. .

GOOGLE ' S REPLY P 10's cited evidence does not actually dispute the identified fact, and in fact admits it. P 10's improper legal argument should be stricken . See Scheduling Order 27 at 6:5-6. P 10's cited evidence ( including the opinions of Norman Zada regarding 28
01980 .51320/3092197.1 -49-

DEFENDANT GOOGLE'S CONSOLIDATED SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF GOOGLE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: GOOGLE'S ENTITLEMENT TO SAFE HARBOR UNDER 17 U.S.C. S 512(b) FOR ITS CACHING FEATURE

what Google needed to process P 10's notices) is irrelevant to the contents of the Group C Notices themselves, which speak for themselves. 71. P 10's notice dated March 20, 2007 was addressed to Google's Board of Directors. Poovala Dec. ¶ 48, Ex. N2.

4 5 6 7

GOOGLE'S REPLY
P10 does not dispute the identified fact. P 10's improper legal argument should be stricken. See Scheduling Order at 6:5-6.

72. None of the members of Google's Board of Directors has ever served as Google's designated agent for the receipt of notices of claimed copyri ht infringement under the DMeA. Poovala Dec. ¶ 3. GOOGLE' S REPLY P 10 does not dispute the identified fact. 73. Each of P 10's notices dated December 9, 2005 , March 20, 2007 , June 28, 2007 , July 2, 2007, July 12 , 2007 July 31, 2067, October 16,2607, December 13,2007, January 24, 2008 , March 17, 2008, July 9, 2008 , April 24, 2009, and May 7, 2009 contains multiple layers of electronic folders comprisin gg thousands of pages of allegedly infringing material . Poovala Dec. 48, 52 , Exhs . N1-N11, N14715; Khan Dec. ^ 4-5, 10-19. GOOGLE'S REPLY P10 does not dispute the identified fact. P10's improper legal argument should be stricken. See Scheduling Order at 6:5-6.
74. The "z other infringing websites folder" on the hard drive received with P 10's notice date June 28, 2007 has three subfolders consisting of 46.187 nagesof
DEFENDANT GOOGLE'S CONSOLIDATED SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF GOOGLE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: GOOGLE'S ENTITLEMENT TO SAFE

27

28
01980 , 51320/3092197.1

HARBOR UNDER 17 U.S.C. 6 512(b) FOR ITS CACHING FEATURE

I 2 3 4 5 6

allegedly infringi8ngg material. Poovala Dec. ¶ 4 , Ex. N3; Khan Dec. 1 19.

GOOGLE ' S REPLY P 10 does not dispute the identified fact. 75. The "ALL LARGE ARE P i 0" subfolder in the " z other infringing websites " folder on the hard drive received with P 10's notice dated June 28, 207 comprises, at least 24,870 pa es of allegedly infringing material. Poovala Dec. ¶ 48 , Ex. N3; Khan Dec. ^ 19.

GOOGLE ' S REPLY P 10 does not dispute the identified fact.
76. DVD2 submitted with P 10's notice dated December 13, 2007 contains 28,672 pages of allegedly infringing material within layers of folders and subfolders . Poovala Dec. ¶ 48, Ex. N8 ; Khan Dec.

¶ 16.

GOOGLE'S REPLY 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
01980 . 51320/3092197.1

P 10 does not dispute the identified fact. 77. Each of P 10' s notices dated December 9,2005 March 20,2007, June 28, 2007, Jufy 2, 2007, July 12,2007, July 31, 2007, October 16,2007, December 13,2007, January 24, 2008, March 17,2008, July 9, 2008, November 26,2008, April 24, 2009, and May 7, 2009 contains one or more incomplete URLs. Poovala Dec. T¶ 48, 55,
_51_
DEFENDANT GOOGLE'S CONSOLIDATED SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF GOOGLE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: GOOGLE'S ENTITLEMENT TO SAFE HARBOR UNDER 17 U.S.C. 6 512(b) FOR ITS CACHING FEATURE

I 2 3 4 5

GOOGLE'S REPLY
P 10's cited evidence does not dispute the identified fact. P 10's improper legal argument should be stricken. See Scheduling Order at 6:5-6. P10's cited evidence (including the opinions of Norman Zada and Sean Chumura regarding the information it thinks Google needs to process a DMCA notice) is irrelevant to contents of the Group C Notices, which speak for themselves.

78. Each of P10's notices dated March 20,2007 , June 28,2007, July 2, 2007, July 12, 2007,
July 31 2007 , October 16,2007, December 13, 2007 , January 24, 2008, March 17, 2008, July 9, 2008 , November 27, 2008, April 24, 2009 , May 7, 2009, May 30, 20092 June 4, 2009, and June 13,2009 includes one or more screen shots displaying multiple Images. Poovala Dec. ¶¶ 48, 55, Exhs.N2-NII, NI3-NI 8'.

GOOGLE'S REPLY P 10 does not dispute the identified fact. P 10's improper legal argument 22 should be stricken. See Scheduling Order at 6:5-6. 23 24 25 26 27 28
01980 . 51320/3092197.1

79. P 10' s notices dated between March 20, 2007 and June 13, 2009 included screen shots depicting alleged framing or inline linking showing apparent independent navigation of the framed web page such that even when the complete URL for that page is displayed in the screen shot, the URL does not lead to the allegedly inline-linked web -page.

-52DEFENDANT GOOGLE'S CONSOLIDATED SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF GOOGLE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: GOOGLE'S ENTITLEMENT TO SAFE
HARBOR UNDER 17 U.S.C. S 512(b) FOR ITS CACHING FEATURE

I 2 3 4 5 6

Poovala Dec . tt 48, 55, Exhs. N2N 18, R.

GOOGLE'S REPLY

P 10 does not dispute the identified fact. P 10's improper legal argument

7 should be stricken. See Scheduling Order at 6:5-6. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
01980 .5132013092197.1 -53-

Google's Processing of P10 ' s Notices 80. Over the past four-plus
-in l years, Goo^gg-e--ha numerous URLsW

response to P 10's DMCA notices, of those and has from URLs appearing in searc results, including the caching feature. Poovala Dec. ¶ 9 1 , Exh s. FF , GG , HH5 II; Haahr Dec. It 6, 9, Exhs. 1 and 2.

mop

DEFENDANT GOOGLE'S CONSOLIDATED SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF GOOGLE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: GOOGLE'S ENTITLEMENT TO SAFE HARBOR UNDER 17 U.S.C. 8 512(b) FOR ITS CACHING FEATURE

GOOGLE'S REPLY

P 10 does not dispute the identified fact and in fact admits it. P 10's improper legal argument should be stricken. See Scheduling Order at 6:5-6. Google carefully reviewed 81. P 10's notices to ensure that its repeat infringer policies were enforced. Poovala Decl. ¶ 92.

5 6 7

GOOGLE'S REPLY P10's cited evidence (including the Botelho Declaration and Zada's various opinions) does not actually dispute the identified fact. P 10's improper legal argument should be stricken. See Scheduling Order at 6:5-6. Google's DMCA tracking spreadsheets documenting Google's enforcement of its repeat infringer 27 policies, as well as P 10's DMCA notices, speak for themselves. 28
0 [980.5132013092197.1

-54DEFENDANT GOOGLE'S CONSOLIDATED SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF GOOGLE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: GOOGLE'S ENTITLEMENT TO SAFE HARBOR UNDER 17 U.S.C. S 512(b) FOR ITS CACHING FEATURE

1 2 3 4 5

Google's Proces sing of the Group B Notices
82. Google sent P10 correspondence id entify i ng deficiencies in P10 ' s Wl& i

notices. Poovala Dec. ¶¶ 56-73, Exhs. S-EE.

6

18 19 20 21 22 GOOGLE'S REPLY P 14's cited evidence (including Zada's various opinions) does not actually

23 dispute the identified fact, and in fact admits it. P 10's improper legal argument 24 should be stricken. See Scheduling Order at 6:5-6. Google's communications and 25 instructions to P10 speak for themselves. 26 27
01980 . 5132013092197.1

28

83. In response, P10 disputed that its notices were defective, and did not re-submit corrected notices. Poovala Dec. T 74.
-55HARBOR UNDER 17 U.S.C. 6 512(b) FOR ITS CACHING FEATURE

DEFENDANT GOOGLE'S CONSOLIDATED SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF GOOGLE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: GOOGLE'S ENTITLEMENT TO SAFE

IF I

I 2

GOGGLE' S REPLY
P 10's cited evidence (including Zada's various opinions) 'does not actually dispute the identified fact. P 10's improper legal argument should be stricken. See Scheduling Order at 6:5-6. P10's responsive communications disputing Google's instructions speak for themselves. 84. The majority (i.e. more than half) of PI O's notices dated between May 31, 2004 and

June 13, 2009 did not include electronic soft copy lists of allegedly infringln URLs. Poovala Dec. ¶ 84, Exhs. L and N.

23 24 25 26 27 28
01980 .5132013092197.1 6-

GOOGLE'S REPLY P 10's cited evidence (including Zada's various opinions) does not actually dispute the identified fact. P 10's improper legal argument should be stricken. See

DEFENDANT GOOGLE'S CONSOLIDATED SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF GOOGLE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: GOOGLE'S ENTITLEMENT TO SAFE
HARBOR UNDER 17 U.S.C. S 512(b) FOR ITS CACHING FEATURE

Scheduling Order at 6:5-6. P10's claim is contradicted by the referenced