Perfect 10 Inc v. Google Inc et al

Filing 948

MINUTES IN CHAMBERS by Judge A. Howard Matz: NOTICE OF ERRATA REGARDING ORDER GRANTING in part and DENYING in part Defendant Google Inc's Motions for Partial Summary Judgment as to Safe Harbor under 17 USC section 512 (document #937 ). The Court issues this order to correct the paragraph that begins at the bottom of page 27 of the Order with "As discussed above in the section of this Order...." The reference in that paragraph to Exh. 45 was incorrect. (See attached Minute Order for further details). (jp)

Perfect 10 Inc v. Google Inc et al

Doc. 948

O UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. Title CV 04-9484 AHM (SHx) PERFECT 10, INC. v. GOOGLE, INC., et al. Date July 28, 2010

Present: The Honorable Stephen Montes Deputy Clerk

A. HOWARD MATZ, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE Not Reported Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys NOT Present for Defendants:

Attorneys NOT Present for Plaintiffs: Proceedings:

IN CHAMBERS (No Proceedings Held)

NOTICE OF ERRATA REGARDING ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT GOOGLE, INC.'S MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO SAFE HARBOR UNDER 17 U.S.C. § 512 (DOCUMENT 937)

The Court issues this order to correct the paragraph that begins at the bottom of page 27 of the Order with "As discussed above in the section of this Order . . . ." The reference in that paragraph to Exh. 45 was incorrect. It was Exhibit 16. So, with the corrections reflected in bold, that paragraph is modified to read: As discussed above in the section of this Order concerning § 512(d), some Group B notices could be considered adequate for imparting notice under the DMCA. However, in its opposition papers and in oral argument at the hearing P10 did not contend that Google failed to expeditiously process even a single Blogger URL within that group of notices, although it did include an exhibit supporting this position (Exh. 16, pp. 1, 2, 4, 6) in the binder it handed up in court. See Zada Decl. ¶¶ 8, 41-51, 60-61, Exhs. 1, 9, 16, 28-35; Chou Decl. ¶¶ 8-11 (citing only examples of a delay in removing Blogger infringing material identified in P10's Group C notices). Thus, Google clearly is entitled to safe harbor under § 512(c) for its Blogger service for the links identified only in the Group B notices, with the possible exception of the six supposedly infringing URLs that were included in Exhibit 16.
: Initials of Preparer
CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

SMO
Page 1 of 1

Dockets.Justia.com