Perfect 10 Inc v. Google Inc et al

Filing 573

EXHIBIT Filed filed by Plaintiff Perfect 10 Inc. PLAINTIFF PERFECT 10, INC'S EXHIBITS FROM THE SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 HEARING REGARDING DISCOVERY ISSUES BEFORE JUDGE HILLMAN as to Miscellaneous Document,, #409 , Joint Stipulation re Discovery Motion,,,,,, #408 . (Mausner, Jeffrey)

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

Jeffrey N. Mausner (State Bar No. 122385) Law Offices of Jeffrey N. Mausner Warner Center Towers 21800 Oxnard Street, Suite 910 Woodland Hills, California 91367-3640 Email: [e-mail] Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Plaintiff Perfect 10, Inc. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PERFECT 10, INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE, INC., a corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendant. ______________________________ AND CONSOLIDATED CASE. Case No. CV 04-9484 AHM (SHx) Consolidated with Case No. CV 05-4753 AHM (SHx) DISCOVERY MATTER PLAINTIFF PERFECT 10, INC'S EXHIBITS FROM THE SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 HEARING REGARDING DISCOVERY ISSUES BEFORE JUDGE HILLMAN CONFIDENTIAL EXHIBITS FILED SEPARATELY, UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER Before Judge Stephen J. Hillman Date: September 22, 2009 Time: 10:00 A.M. Place: Courtroom 550, Courtroom of the Honorable Stephen J. Hillman Discovery Cut-Off Date: None Set Pretrial Conference Date: None Set Trial Date: None Set

Plaintiff Perfect 10, Inc.'s Exhibits from the September 22, 2009 Hearing Re Discovery

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
Plaintiff Perfect 10, Inc.'s Exhibits from the September 22, 2009 Hearing Re Discovery

PLAINTIFF PERFECT 10, INC'S EXHIBIT CONTAINING TRANSCRIPT OF AUGUST 18, 2008 HEARING BEFORE JUDGE A. HOWARD MATZ

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 _____________________________________ CINDY L. NIRENBERG, CSR #5059 U.S. Official Court Reporter 312 North Spring Street, #438 Los Angeles, California 90012
www.cindynirenberg.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - WESTERN DIVISION HONORABLE A. HOWARD MATZ, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE ----

) ) ) ) vs. ) No. CV04-09484-AHM(SHx) ) GOOGLE, INC., ET AL., ) DEFENDANTS. ) ___________________________________) ) PERFECT 10, INC., A CALIFORNIA ) CORPORATION, ) PLAINTIFF, ) ) vs. ) No. CV05-04753-AHM(SHx) ) AMAZON, ET AL., ) DEFENDANTS. ) ___________________________________)

PERFECT 10, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF,

REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA MONDAY, AUGUST 18, 2008

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

38 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 designation? Where do things stand? Ms. Herrick? If necessary,

MS. HERRICK:

Absolutely, Your Honor.

we do intend to pursue motion practice because obviously something that's very important in this case, as in all cases, is that the parties strictly abide by the Protective Order. And the large hard drives that Mr. Zeller was referring to earlier have been produced with a sticker on them that just says "Confidential," and inside, there is a mix of confidential and clearly public information. And we don't want

to run afoul of the Protective Order by accidentally producing or maybe filing something that Perfect 10 meant to designate as confidential but didn't specifically identify or label. THE COURT: But if you're correct that some stuff is

obviously public, then you are not at risk if whatever is obviously public is something that makes its way into some filing of yours, right? MS. HERRICK: THE COURT: I'm sorry? Say that one more time.

You're not at risk of violating a

Protective Order if something that's obviously public is something that you incorporate into something that you filed, right? MS. HERRICK: Technically, if we were to file

something not under seal that Mr. Mausner has designated as confidential, we would be violating the Protective Order, and we certainly don't want to in any way, shape or form risk that.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

39 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 deal here. So if something is obviously public, it's been given this blanket, random, sweeping, as Google would have it, designation of confidentiality because you put some little sticker on a hard drive, and they incorporate it into something they say or do or file, even though it was part of this hard drive with the confidential blanket stamp, are you going to fuss? MR. MAUSNER: No. And we would also, you know, be THE COURT: Okay. But let's see if we can have a

happy to tell them if they want to ask about something. It's just going to be very difficult to take all of these millions of documents and, you know, put actual confidential designations on each one. THE COURT: Okay. Well, I'm not making a ruling

about this dispute and neither is Judge Hillman, who has been patient enough to -- are you still there, Judge Hillman? JUDGE HILLMAN: THE COURT: I am. Neither of us has to issue some

Okay.

kind of advisory ruling because maybe it won't come to light. But it seems to me, Ms. Herrick, that when push comes to shove, and you are really in the process of needing to make use of whatever is on these documents, if there is a genuine ambiguity or doubt, then you run it by the people at Perfect 10 or Mr. Mausner.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

40 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 And I'm going to hold Mr. Mausner to his word because I am going to hold you to your word. If something is obviously public, use it. Don't And

waste your client's money or your time getting permission.

he is not going to be given any credence if he claims that you made a violation of the Protective Order by using it, because if it was obviously public, you had a right to do it. MS. HERRICK: Your Honor, just one further thing.

Some things might appear to be obviously public to us, but Perfect 10 has nevertheless insisted that it's confidential. For instance, screenshots of alleged infringements, Perfect 10 has taken the position that the screenshots that identify where an infringing image can be found is confidential. So that is something that I might want to file

because it appears to be just a screenshot, but Perfect 10, I think, would be upset by that and would argue that that would be a violation of a Protective Order because they have designated those sorts of material as confidential. We believe improperly so, but that is just one example of how I think there will be -THE COURT: But my point is if there is something

that's really making you think that you are at risk of inadvertently, unintentionally violating a Protective Order, bring it up.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

41 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 Order. court. You got a problem with screenshots? MR. MAUSNER: Not with the shot itself, but the

location of the infringing website allows anybody to find the infringements, basically. And we don't have a problem with those being filed in What we do have a problem with is Google publishing the

location of the infringing websites on the internet, which is something that it's done in the past. It's actually published Perfect 10's DMCA notices that have the URL where the infringing images are located. THE COURT: So why don't you modify the Protective

Make it clear what you do think they shouldn't do. MR. MAUSNER: THE COURT: But -Look, I'm not going to spend more time on

this one because I've got too many other things to do, but it seems to me that this is an example of what I'm afraid has been going on here which is that both sides are just pointing the finger and failing to talk to each other. If there is some clarity that can be agreed to that will limit the need to fuss and make motions about the Protective Order and the snapping of confidentiality, then change your God damn Protective Order, file it, and proceed on that basis. Now, let's move on. MR. MAUSNER: Your Honor, I think they do, too, but

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

51 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 Honor. If I got what you told me before, Alexa is basically a search engine. MR. MALUTTA: We believe so, Your Honor. I mean,

they were just added as a party, so we are doing our own internal investigation as well. THE COURT: But why can't I set dates that apply to

all three of your clients? MR. MALUTTA: We have no objection to that, Your

We've asked for all three dates for our clients, just

so long as they are sufficiently out to allow us to have the full discovery for Alexa. THE COURT: And what's your view about this issue I

raised with the Google lawyers concerning the format of electronic reduction? MR. MALUTTA: Our view point is the same as theirs.

We have -- and I'll also represent to this Court that the TIFF format is the standard litigation format. All of the litigation databases out there, all the vendors, everybody uses TIFF. And that's what -- that makes it easy to identify documents, to search documents. It makes it easy to put

control numbers on them so we know what we are referring to when it comes down to trial or deposition or something. That's

what makes it very easy to investigate what's in this massive production. 600 gigabytes is enormous. We have had quotes

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

52 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 from vendors, and it's near a million dollars to convert their native files into something that's usable in a standard litigation database. THE COURT: Well, do you think that producing it in

standard database format, whatever that is, is a display of gamesmanship and bad faith on the part of Perfect 10? MR. MALUTTA: I have no idea what the motivation is

for Perfect 10 to produce it in the format -- and it's a format that's been created for this litigation. They are creating documents for this litigation, and why they've chosen one format over the standard format, I don't know. THE COURT: Well, if there's going to be some motion

practice -- and if I am keeping things straight in my mind, we simply passed over the resolution of that dispute earlier this afternoon -- then my guess is whoever decides that motion would find it potentially relevant to know whether it's just games playing. So I'll leave it at that. No, you sit down, Mr. Mausner. response right now. Now, in your 16(b) report, I don't think there is anything mentioned about the mechanism in that case, in the Amazon cases -- case, to comply with the Local Rule 16-15 requiring good faith efforts for mediation. Judge Lynch was the mediator in the Google case
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

I don't want a

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
Plaintiff Perfect 10, Inc.'s Exhibits from the September 22, 2009 Hearing Re Discovery

PLAINTIFF PERFECT 10, INC'S EXHIBIT SHOWING EMAILS BETWEEN COUNSEL REGARDING REDACTIONS

Jef frey Mausner
From: Sent: T o: Subject: Jef f rey Mausner [[e-mail]] Thursday, August 13, 2009 11:23 AM Timothy Cahn; [e-mail] FW :

From: Jeffrey Mausner [mailto:[e-mail]] Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 11:19 AM To: Rachel Herrick Kassabian [e-mail]; Thomas Nolan [e-mail]; Michael T Zeller [e-mail]; Charles K. Verhoeven ([e-mail]); Andrea P Roberts [e-mail]; Brad R. Love [e-mail] ; Jansen, Mark T. [e-mail]; Malutta, Anthony J. [e-mail] Subject:

We would like to file redacted versions of the following pleadings, which will be publicly available:
1) PLAINTIFF PERFECT 10, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO GOOGLE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: SAFE HARBOR UNDER 17 U.S.C. §512(c) FOR ITS BLOGGER SERVICE PLAINTIFF PERFECT 10, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO GOOGLE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: SAFE HARBOR UNDER 17 U.S.C. §512(d) FOR WEB AND IMAGE SEARCH PLAINTIFF PERFECT 10, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO GOOGLE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: SAFE HARBOR UNDER 17 U.S.C. §512(b) FOR ITS CACHING FEATURE PERFECT 10'S STATEMENT OF GENUINE ISSUES IN OPPOSITION TO GOOGLE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: SAFE HARBOR UNDER 17 U.S.C. § 512(c) FOR ITS BLOGGER SERVICE PERFECT 10'S STATEMENT OF GENUINE ISSUES IN OPPOSITION TO GOOGLE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: SAFE HARBOR UNDER 17 U.S.C. § 512(d) FOR WEB AND IMAGE SEARCH PERFECT 10'S STATEMENT 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 DECLARATION OF DR. NORMAN ZADA SUBMI TTED IN OPPOSITION TO GOOGLE'S THREE MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE DMCA SAFE HARBOR FOR ITS WEB AND IMAGE SEARCH, BLOGGER SERVICE, AND CACHING FEATURE (DOCKET NOS. 428, 427, AND 426)

2)

3)

4)

5)

6)

7)

In order to assure that we redact everything that is properly designated as Confidential or Highly Confidential by Google and the Amazon.com defendants, I am requesting that counsel for Google and Amazon notify me of portions of the above pleadings that they believe should be redacted. Please provide a listing of page and line numbers that Google and Amazon.com believe should be redacted in these pleadings. Please send this to me by August 20. Thanks, Jeff.

This e-mail may be confidential or may contain information which is protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine, as well as other privileges. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, any
1

Page 1

dissemination or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. Anyone who mistakenly receives this e-mail should notify the sender immediately by telephone or return e-mail and delete it from his or her computer.

Jeffrey N. Mausner Law Offices of Jeffrey N. Mausner Warner Center Towers 21800 Oxnard Street, Suite 910 Woodland Hills, California 91367-3640 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] e-mail: [e-mail]

2

Page 2

Jef frey Mausner
From: Sent: T o: Subject: Jeff, Your request is inappropriate and we will not agree to it. Google has undertaken significant effort and expense to designate its Confidential and Highly Confidential materials as such, pursuant to the Protective Order. Where Perfect 10 has cited to Google's materials in its briefing, it is Perfect 10's obligation to review those designations to ensure that it is redacting all designated material, in compliance with the Protective Order. Regards, Rachel Rachel Herrick Kassabian [[e-mail]] Friday, August 14, 2009 4:37 PM 'Jef f rey Mausner'; Thomas Nolan; Michael T Zeller; Charles K Verhoeven; Andrea P Roberts; Brad R. Love; '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'; 'Cahn, Timothy R.' RE:

1

Page 3

Jef frey Mausner
From: Sent: T o: Subject: Jeff: Our clients are not parties to the extensive briefs noted below, so I am unclear as to why we would have an obligation to review them. Further, as we have advised in connection with prior Perfect 10 court filings, the filing party bears the burden of preserving confidential material in its filings. We expect compliance with the Protective Order, and that you will appropriately redact Confidential or Highly Confidential material of the Amazon.com defendants. Regards, Anthony Mal utta, Anthony J. [[e-mail]] Friday, August 14, 2009 4:52 PM Rachel Herrick Kassabian; Jeffrey Mausner; Thomas Nolan; Michael T Zeller; Charles K Verhoeven; Andrea P Roberts; Brad R. Love; Jansen, Mark T. ; Cahn, Timothy R. RE:

1

Page 4

Jef frey Mausner
From: Sent: T o: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Jef f rey Mausner [[e-mail]] W ednesday, August 19, 2009 11:15 PM 'Mal utta, Anthony J.'; 'Rachel Herrick Kassabian'; 'Thomas Nolan'; 'Michael T Zeller'; 'Charles K Verhoeven'; 'Andrea P Roberts'; 'Brad R. Love'; 'Jansen, Mark T. '; 'Cahn, Timothy R.'; [e-mail] Val erie Kincaid Filing of Redacted Pleadings Blogger Brief - 80909 Redacted.pdf; Cache Brief - 80909 - redacted.pdf

Dear Counsel: Attached are the following pleadings: PLAINTIFF PERFECT 10, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO GOOGLE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: SAFE HARBOR UNDER 17 U.S.C. §512(c) FOR ITS BLOGGER SERVICE PLAINTIFF PERFECT 10, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO GOOGLE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: SAFE HARBOR UNDER 17 U.S.C. §512(b) FOR ITS CACHING FEATURE We have highlighted in blue portions of those briefs that we believe Google and Amazon might assert are Confidential. Although Google and Amazon have designated material Confidential under the protective order that is not Confidential, Perfect 10 has made a good faith effort to redact all material designated Confidential, from the pleadings Perfect 10 intends to publicly file. Please review the attached and let me know if there is anything else in either of these documents that you believe should be redacted. Also, if there are any portions that we have highlighted in blue that you believe do not need to be redacted, please let me know as well. Perfect 10 reserves its rights to move the Court for an order determining that any of the redacted material should not be designated Confidential. We will get you our proposed redactions for the remaining pleadings soon. Thanks, Jeff.

1

Page 5

Jef frey Mausner
From: Sent: T o: Subject: Rachel Herrick Kassabian [[e-mail]] Friday, August 21, 2009 12:59 PM 'Jef f rey Mausner'; 'Malutta, Anthony J.'; Thomas Nolan; Michael T Zeller; Andrea P Roberts; Brad R. Love; 'Jansen, Mark T. '; 'Cahn, Timothy R.'; '[e-mail]' RE: Filing of Redacted Pleadings

Jeff, As we have explained before, it is inappropriate for Perfect 10 to ask Google to do its legal work for it. Googl e is under no obligation to review every sentence of every one of the voluminous materials Perfect 10 has submitted in opposition to Google's DMCA motions, and prepare redacted versions of those materials for Perfect 10. Googl e has undertaken significant effort and expense to designate its Confidential and Highly Confidential materials as such, pursuant to the Protective Order. Wher e Perfect 10 has cited to Google's materials, it is Perfect 10's obligation to review those designations to ensure that it is redacting all designated material, in compliance with the Protective Order. W e trust that Perfect 10 will respect Google's confidential information and comply with its obligations here. On a related note, Perfect 10's failure to submit redacted briefs and declarations is hampering our ability to prepare reply materials, and as a result, Google may need more time to prepare those materials. It has now been two weeks since Perfect 10 filed its opposition materials, entirely under seal, despite the fact that significant portions of those materials are not confidential. Thus, we have no way of knowing which portions of Perfect 10's opposition materials it considers to contain Perfect 10's confidential information, and which portions do not. This hampers Google's ability to access and respond to Perfect 10's arguments and alleged facts (though consultation with the appropriate Google personnel, among other things). Please provide us with Perfect 10's redacted briefs by the close of business today, with the materials Perfect 10 believes contain its confidential information clearly redacted. If Perfect 10 needs more time to prepar e its redactions, then please stipulate to extend Google's deadline to file its reply briefs. Regar ds, Rachel
Rachel Herrick Kassabian, Partner Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, LLP 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 560 Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Direct: [phone] Mai n Phone: [phone] Mai n Fax: [phone] E-mail: rachelkassabian@quinnem anuel.com W eb: www.quinnem anuel.com The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. This message may be an attorney-client communication and/or work product and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message.

1

Page 6

Jef frey Mausner
From: Sent: T o: Subject: Jef f rey Mausner [[e-mail]] Friday, August 21, 2009 3:32 PM 'Rachel Herrick Kassabian'; 'Malutta, Anthony J.'; 'Thomas Nolan'; 'Michael T Zeller'; 'Andrea P Roberts'; 'Brad R. Love'; 'Jansen, Mark T. '; 'Cahn, Timothy R.'; [e-mail] RE: Filing of Redacted Pleadings

Rachel, anyone at Google involved in the litigation and anyone that you want to consult with regarding the litigation can see anything in all of the documents that Perfect 10 filed in opposition to Google's three Motions for Summary Judgment, including all briefs, declarations, and any of the other pleadings and exhibits, as far as Perfect 10 is concerned. (You will have to check with Amazon to see if they have any objection to anyone at Google seeing their confidential materials.) Perfect 10 merely requests that Google not publicize URLs where infringing material is located, as Google has done in the past on ChillingEffects.org. The entirety of Perfect 10's briefs were filed under seal to protect Google's and Amazon's confidential information. Your refusal to inform us whether Google deems anything, other than what we highlighted in the briefs attached to my August 19 email, to be subject to the protective order is completely unreasonable. Perfect 10 has shown Google the material Perfect 10 anticipates that Google will claim is confidential, but Perfect 10 cannot fully anticipate what Google will claim is subject to the protective order. You, the other attorneys in your firm, and Google personnel are reviewing the briefs now; it will be easy for Google or someone at your firm to make this determination now. In fact, I would be quite surprised if your firm has not already determined whether Perfect 10's proposed redactions are sufficient. You know very well that when Perfect 10 files the documents with redactions, Google will immediately claim that something else should have been redacted, so you can threaten to hold Perfect 10 and me in contempt for violating the protective order. Why not inform Perfect 10 now if there is any additional material that Google claims should be redacted, so there will be no misunderstanding as to what Google claims should be redacted. Redacted versions of the briefs should be filed, and Google should cooperate, rather than trying to set us up to claim that we violated the protective order. Jeff.

1

Page 7

Jef frey Mausner
From: Sent: T o: Subject: Rachel Herrick Kassabian [[e-mail]] Friday, August 21, 2009 4:00 PM 'Jef f rey Mausner'; 'Malutta, Anthony J.'; Thomas Nolan; Michael T Zeller; Andrea P Roberts; Brad R. Love; 'Jansen, Mark T. '; 'Cahn, Timothy R.'; '[e-mail]' RE: Filing of Redacted Pleadings

Jeff, Are you representing that Perfect 10's DMCA opposition briefs, statements of genuine issues, declarations and exhibits do not contain any material that Perfect 10 considers confidential under the Protective Order? If so, then why did you submit a signed pleading with the Court attesting that Perfect 10's DMCA opposition briefs, statements of genuine issues, the Zada declaration and certain exhibits "contain material... designated Confidential by Perfect 10"? If that statement is in fact untrue (and your representations in the below email are correct), such that Google can treat Perfect 10's opposi tion materials as containing no confidential Perfect 10 information, please confirm immediately. On the other hand, if your statement to the Court in Perfect 10's Application to File Under Seal is true (and your statement below is mistaken), then please send us Perfect 10's redacted briefs by the close of business today, with the materials Perfect 10 believes contain its confidential information clearly redacted. If Perfect 10 needs more time to prepare its redactions, then please stipulate to extend Google's deadline to file its reply briefs. Rachel

1

Page 8

Jef frey Mausner
From: Sent: T o: Subject: Jef f Mausner [[e-mail]] Friday, August 21, 2009 6:42 PM '[e-mail] '; Thomas Nolan; Michael T Zeller; Andrea P Roberts; Brad R. Love; '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'; Rachel Herrick Kassabian Re: Filing of Redacted Pleadings

Rachel, I told you that anyone at Google involved in the litigation and anyone that you want to consult with regarding the litigation can see anything in all of the documents that Perfect 10 filed in opposition to Google's three Motions for Summary Judgment, including all briefs, declarations, and any of the other pleadings and exhibits, as far as Perfect 10 is concerned. The URLs where the infringing material is located are confidential. But I said you can show everything, including those URLs, to anyone at Google involved in the litigation and anyone that you want to consult with regarding the litigation. We just don't want Google to publish a roadmap of where Perfect 10's infringing content is located, as it has done in the past. It seems to me that you are just trying to manufacture a basis to get additional time to file your reply papers. We will not consent to that. Jeff.

Jeffrey Mausner 21800 Oxnard Street, Suite 910 Woodland Hills, California 91367 [e-mail] T [phone] F [phone]

1

Page 9

Jef frey Mausner
From: Sent: T o: Subject: J ef f , There is a court order involved here, and you do not have the authority to waive enforcement of that order. Please answer the questions in my prior email. Rachel Rachel Herrick Kassabian 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 560 Redwood Shores, CA. 94065 Direct: [phone] Office: [phone] Fax: [phone] Rachel Herrick Kassabian [[e-mail]] Friday, August 21, 2009 6:51 PM 'jef f @mausnerlaw.com '; '[e-mail]'; Thomas Nolan; Michael T Zeller; Andrea P Roberts; Brad R. Love; '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]' Re: Filing of Redacted Pleadings

1

Page 10

Jef frey Mausner
From: Sent: T o: Subject: Jef f Mausner [[e-mail]] Friday, August 21, 2009 8:25 PM '[e-mail] '; Thomas Nolan; Michael T Zeller; Andrea P Roberts; Brad R. Love; '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'; Rachel Herrick Kassabian Re: Filing of Redacted Pleadings

Rache l, I answered your questions. Perfect 10 has given you permission to show any Perfect 10 confidential information in our opposition papers to anyone at Google involved in the litigation and anyone that you want to consult with regarding the litigation. Isn't that what you wanted? Jeff.

Jeffrey Mausner 21800 Oxnard Street, Suite 910 Woodland Hills, California 91367 [e-mail] T [phone] F [phone]

1

Page 11

Jef frey Mausner
From: Sent: T o: Subject: Attachments: Jef f Mausner [[e-mail]] Friday, August 21, 2009 11:53 PM '[e-mail] '; Thomas Nolan; Michael T Zeller; Andrea P Roberts; Brad R. Love; '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'; Rachel Herrick Kassabian Re: Filing of Redacted Pleadings Search Brief - 8-21-09 Redacted.pdf

Rachel, pursuant to your request, attached are Perfect 10's three opposition briefs, with portions to be redacted highlighted. Portions highlighted in blue are those that we believe Google or Amazon would want redacted. Portions highlighted in yellow are those containing Perfect 10's redactions. Please review the attached and let me know if there is anything else in any of these documents that you believe should be redacted. Also, if there are any portions that we have highlighted in blue that you believe do not need to be redacted, please let me know as well. Three separate emails will be sent with the attachments. Jeff.

Jeffrey Mausner 21800 Oxnard Street, Suite 910 Woodland Hills, California 91367 [e-mail] T [phone] F [phone]

1

Page 12

Jef frey Mausner
From: Sent: T o: Subject: Rachel Herrick Kassabian [[e-mail]] Saturday, August 22, 2009 9:54 AM 'Jef f Mausner'; '[e-mail]'; Thomas Nolan; Michael T Zeller; Andrea P Roberts; Brad R. Love; '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]' RE: Filing of Redacted Pleadings

Jeff, Thank you for providing Perfect 10's redactions. As for the remainder of your email, please see my email dated August 21 at 12:59 p.m., below. Rachel

Jeffrey Mausner 21800 Oxnard Street, Suite 910 Woodland Hills, California 91367 [e-mail] T [phone] F [phone] --- On Fri, 8/21/09, Jeff Mausner <[e-mail]> wrote: From: Jeff Mausner <[e-mail]> Subject: Re: Filing of Redacted Pleadings To: "'[e-mail]'" <[e-mail]>, "Thomas Nolan" <[e-mail]>, "Michael T Zeller" <[e-mail]>, "Andrea P Roberts" <[e-mail]>, "Brad R. Love" <[e-mail]>, "'[e-mail]'" <[e-mail]>, "'[e-mail]'" <[e-mail]>,

1

Page 13

Jeffrey Mausner
From: Sent: To: Subject: Rachel Herrick Kassabian [[e-mail]] Saturday, August 22, 2009 10:04 AM 'Jeff Mausner'; '[e-mail]'; Thomas Nolan; Michael T Zeller; Andrea P Roberts; Brad R. Love; '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]' RE: Filing of Redacted Pleadings

Jeff, please read Paragraph 5 of the Protective Order.

P

1

PagePage 14 <<14>>

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
Plaintiff Perfect 10, Inc.'s Exhibits from the September 22, 2009 Hearing Re Discovery

PLAINTIFF PERFECT 10, INC'S EXHIBIT SHOWING PLAINTIFF PERFECT 10, INC.'S POWERPOINT PRESENTATION (PARTIALLY FILED UNDER SEAL)

Perfect 10's Document Production Perfect 10's Adobe PDF DMCA Notices
U.S. District Court - Central District of California Perfect 10 v. Google, Case No. CV 04-9484 AHM (SHx) Perfect 10 v. Amazon, Case No. CV 05-4753 AHM (SHx)
Page 1

Perfect 10's June 2009 Production (a hard drive)

From the hard drives' root drive ( (in this case, "K:\"), select the s case, :\ ), se ec e "Amazon" folder

Page 2

Then select "alexa DMCA" folder

Page 3

Then select "112708" folder

Page 4

The November 27, 2008 o ce s contained notice is co a ed in this folder. The email cover letter is saved in PDF, "DMCA Notice.pdf" and the accompanying pyg attachment is the PDF file: "Jane Sarasin.pdf"

Page 5

The file "Jane Sarasin.pdf" as it appears when opened.

SEE NEXT SLIDE

Page 6

(From previous slide)

Page 7

Search feature (or Ctrl+F) can do basic searches do basic searches for keywords.

SEARCH
CAPABILITIES

The Advanced Search feature
Page 8

FILES CAN BE SAVED IN MANY OTHER FORMATS

Page 9

GOOGLE S GOOGLE'S DISORGANIZED, REPETITIVE DOCUMENT PRODUCTIONS

Page 10

[REDACTED]

Please Please see handout for additional examples from Google's Document Production

Page 19

Perfect 10's Document Productions were organized in folders, labeled, and searchable

Page 20

Perfect 10 Magazines in April 2006 Document Production

From the hard drives' root d ve ( t s case, oot drive (in this case, "E:\"), select the folder "PERFECT 10 MAGAZINE ­ PDF FORMAT"

Page 21

This folder contains the Perfect 10 Magazines for the April 2006 production. The magazines are offered in both PDF and JPG format. JPG files are contained in the separate folders labeled by separate folders labeled by Volume & Number. Additionally, the images from the magazine were also e aga e we e a so provided as organized by model in the "By Model" and "For GOOGLE" folders.

Page 22

Perfect 10 Magazine ­ Premiere Issue (JPG files)

Page 23

Performing searches on Perfect 10's production hard drives is simple.

Ctrl+F or pressing the "Search" button on the task bar allows for task bar allows for many search options. As shown, one can search for Issue 20 of search for Issue 20 of Perfect 10 Magazine by entering a search query for "Issue 20"

SEE NEXT SLIDE

Page 24

Location of Issue 20 on April 2006 production hard drive production hard drive provided by search

Page 25

Windows will even search for text within files. For example, one could p perform a search for a specific model name, or even a URL. Windows will find files that contain the search term.

SEE NEXT SLIDE
Page 26

Page 27

Page 28

Page 29