Perfect 10 Inc v. Google Inc et al

Filing 555

NOTICE OF LODGING filed by Plaintiff Perfect 10 of [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART GOOGLE INC.'S MOTION RE CONFIDENTIALITY DESIGNATIONS AND BATE STAMPING DOCUMENTS, re MOTION to Compel Perfect 10, Inc. to Produce Documents, Comply with the Protective Order, and Affix Document Control Numbers to its Document Productions #407 (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART GOOGLE INC.'S MOTION RE CONFIDENTIALITY DESIGNATIONS AND BATE STAMPING DOCUMENTS)(Mausner, Jeffrey)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CASE NO. CV 04-9484 AHM (SHx) [Consolidated with Case No. CV 054753 AHM (SHx)] [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART GOOGLE INC.'S MOTION RE CONFIDENTIALITY DESIGNATIONS AND BATE STAMPING DOCUMENTS Hon. Stephen J. Hillman Date: September 22, 2009 Time: 10:00 AM Crtrm.: 550 Discovery Cutoff: None Set Pretrial Conference Date: None Set Trial Date: None Set

PERFECT 10, INC., a California 10 corporation, 11 12 vs. Plaintiff,

13 GOOGLE INC., a corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, 14 Defendants. 15 16 AND COUNTERCLAIM 17 PERFECT 10, INC., a California corporation, 18 Plaintiff, 19 vs. 20 AMAZON.COM, INC., a corporation; 21 A9.COM, INC., a corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, 22 Defendants. 23 24 25 26 27 28
51320/3120066.2

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART GOOGLE INC.'S MOTION TO COMPEL

1 2

[PROPOSED] ORDER On September 22, 2009, the Court heard argument on various discovery

3 matters raised in Defendant Google Inc.'s Motion to Compel Perfect 10 (1) To 4 Produce Documents, (2) To Comply With The Protective Order, and (3) To Affix 5 Document Control Numbers To Its Document Production, including disputes 6 relating to whether Perfect 10 has complied with the Protective Order in designation 7 of documents and/or other information as "Confidential" under its terms, and Bates 8 numbering.1 Defendants Amazon.com and Alexa.com filed an application to join in 9 that motion (Joinder Application), Docket No. 346, supplemented in their letter to 10 the Court dated September 16, 2009. Having considered the parties' respective 11 briefs and oral argument, and good cause existing therefore, the Court HEREBY 12 ORDERS that Google's Motion and Amazon.com and Alexa.com's Joinder 13 Application is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, as follows: 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Google only asked the Court to rule on Issues I, VII, VIII, and IX at the 26 September 22, 2009 hearing, so the Court did not reach Issues II ­ VI presented in the parties' Joint Stipulation On Google Inc.'s Motion to Compel Perfect 10 (1) To 27 Produce Documents, (2) To Comply With The Protective Order, and (3) To Affix 28 Document Control Numbers To Its Document Production.
51320/3120066.2

1.

DMCA Notices are not Confidential within the meaning of the

Protective Order, and to the extent Perfect 10 has designated them as such, they are hereby ordered de-designated. The Court makes no ruling on whether it was proper for Google to send those notices to chillingeffects.org for publication on the Internet and/or for any other use and whether it was proper for chillingeffects.org to publish those notices on the Internet. 2. All parties to the Google and Amazon cases may use documents containing URLs at which allegedly infringing material may be found, and compilations thereof, for purposes of this litigation only (including publicly efiling them, showing them to expert and percipient witnesses, and the like).
1

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART GOOGLE INC.'S MOTION TO COMPEL

-1-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
51320/3120066.2

This Order does not authorize Defendants to use those documents for any purpose other than for the litigation of this case. For example, this Order does not authorize any party to publicly post such URLs on the Internet, including but not limited to posting on chillingeffects.org and/or providing such URLs to chillingeffects.org and any other third-party. Furthermore, this paragraph does not apply to documents that have other confidential information in them, just because they may contain URLs. 3. All documents produced in this litigation that are readily ascertained to be in the public domain (such as newspaper articles) are not Confidential within the meaning of the Protective Order and to the extent Perfect 10 has included them in disks or hard drives labeled Confidential, they are hereby ordered de-designated. 4. If any defendant in the Google and Amazon cases publicly files documents containing URLs at which allegedly infringing material may be located, Perfect 10 may subsequently move for an order to seal such URLs or such documents, which motion may be opposed by the Defendants at their option; the motion shall be ruled on by the judge with which it was filed. 5. No party or its counsel shall be deemed in violation of the Protective Order for its filing, disclosure or other use of a document produced in this litigation that is not individually marked as either Confidential or Highly confidential under the Protective Order, if it has a good faith belief that the materials are in or from the public domain. 6. This Order applies equally in both of the consolidated cases, and is a modification of the current Protective Order. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October ___, 2009 By____________________________ Hon. Stephen J. Hillman United States Magistrate Judge -2-

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART GOOGLE INC.'S MOTION TO COMPEL