Perfect 10 Inc v. Google Inc et al

Filing 933

RESPONSE filed by Counter Claimant Google Inc, Defendant Google Incto Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held, #931 Google Inc.'s Statement re Whether Perfect 10, Inc.'s Group B Notices Identified Alleged Infringing Material in Google's Cache in Response to the Court's July 21, 2010 Order (Zeller, Michael)

Perfect 10 Inc v. Google Inc et al

Doc. 933

1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP Michael T. Zeller (Bar No. 196417) [e-mail] 2 865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor 3 Los Angeles, California 90017-2543 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Charles K. Verhoeven (Bar No. 170151) [e-mail] 5 50 California Street, 22nd Floor 6 San Francisco, California 94111 Rachel Herrick Kassabian (Bar No. 191060) [e-mail] 7 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor 8 Redwood Shores, California 94065 Attorneys for Defendant GOOGLE INC. 9 10 11 12 13 PERFECT 10, INC., a California corporation, 14 Plaintiff, 15 vs. 16 GOOGLE INC., a corporation; and 17 DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
01980.51320/3592192.4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CASE NO. CV 04-9484 AHM (SHx) GOOGLE INC.'S STATEMENT RE WHETHER PERFECT 10, INC.'S GROUP B NOTICES IDENTIFIED ALLEGED INFRINGING MATERIAL IN GOOGLE'S CACHE IN RESPONSE TO THE COURT'S JULY 21, 2010 ORDER Hon. A. Howard Matz Date: None Set Time: None Set Crtrm.: 14 Discovery Cutoff: None Set Pretrial Conference Date: None Set Trial Date: None Set

Defendants. AND COUNTERCLAIM

Case No. CV 04-9484 AHM (SHx) GOOGLE INC.'S STATEMENT RE WHETHER PERFECT 10, INC.'S GROUP B NOTICES IDENTIFIED ALLEGED INFRINGING MATERIAL IN GOOGLE'S CACHE Dockets.Justia.com

1 3

Google respectfully submits the following statement in response to the The Court's Order asks the parties "to identify where in the existing briefs on

2 Court's July 21, 2010 Order (Dkt. No. 931). 4 Google's motion for safe harbor under 17 U.S.C. § 512(b) [Dkt. No. 458, ("Cache 5 Motion")] there is any reference in any of the `Group B' `spreadsheet' notices sent 6 between May 31, 2004 and April 24, 2007 identifying any specific material on 7 Google's cache as infringing." The answer is: nowhere. 8 P10's Group B Notices never asked Google to remove specific material from 9 its cache nor were otherwise directed to Google's cache with the required attestation 10 that "the material has been removed from the originating site." See Cache Reply 11 (Dkt. No. 531) at 10 (citing 17 U.S.C. § 512(b)(2)(E)); Poovala Decl., Exs. L1-L48. 12 P10's Opposition to Google's Cache Motion never argued, or offered any evidence, 13 to the contrary. Indeed, as P10 admits, its complaints to Google concerned material 14 that was still available on the originating web sites. See, e.g., Zada Decl. ¶ 59, Exs. 15 9 (\Still up after notice\monitor.hr\33009) & 44. Thus, they could not have been 16 properly directed to Google's cache under 17 U.S.C. § 512(b)(2)(E). Rather, P10's 17 argument that Google was "put on notice" of cache infringements is premised 18 entirely on a few sample screenshots of Google cache web pages allegedly included 19 in the massive DVDs attached to P10's Group C Notices. See Consol. Statement of 20 Undisputed Facts in Support of Google's Cache Motion (Dkt. No. 502) ¶ 11 (citing 21 Zada Decl. ¶¶ 39 & 59, Exs. 26 & 44). As explained in Google's briefing, such 22 images cannot constitute sufficient notice to Google to remove cache material under 23 the DMCA. See Search Motion (Dkt No. 456) at 20-23; Cache Motion at 9; Search 24 Reply (Dkt. No. 529) at 7-15; Cache Reply at 10-11. 25 DATED: July 22, 2010 26 27 28
01980.51320/3592192.4

GOOGLE INC.'S STATEMENT RE WHETHER PERFECT 10, INC.'S GROUP B NOTICES IDENTIFIED ALLEGED INFRINGING MATERIAL IN GOOGLE'S CACHE

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP By Michael T. Zeller Attorneys for Defendant GOOGLE INC. Case No. CV 04-9484 AHM (SHx) -1-