FOX TELEVISION STATIONS, INC., et al v. AEREOKILLER LLC, et al

Filing 39

Memorandum in opposition to re 36 Emergency MOTION to Stay Preliminary Injunction, 38 Emergency MOTION Judicial Notice re 37 Emergency MOTION for Reconsideration re 33 Memorandum & Opinion, 34 Preliminary Injunction, , 36 Emergency MOTION to Stay Preliminary Injunction filed by ALLBRITTON COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANIES, INC., CBS BROADCASTING, INC.,, CBS STUDIOS, DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC., FOX BROADCASTING COMPANY, INC., FOX TELEVISION STATIONS, INC., GANNETT CO., INC., NBC STUDIOS LLC, NBC SUBSIDIARY (WRC-TV), LLC, OPEN 4 BUSINESS PRODUCTIONS LLC, TELEMUNDO NETWORK GROUP LLC,, TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATION, UNIVERSAL NETWORK TELEVISION LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Julie A. Shepard, # 2 Objections to Defendants' Supplemental Evidence, # 3 Objections to Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice, # 4 Text of Proposed Order)(Smith, Paul)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-00758-RMC Hon. Rosemary M. Collyer FOX TELEVISION STATIONS, INC., et al. Plaintiffs, v. FILMON X, LLC, et al. Defendants. PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS’ SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE Plaintiffs1 respectfully submit their Objections to the Declarations of Alkiviades David and Mykola Kutovyy filed by Defendants FilmOn X, LLC, FilmOn.TV Networks, Inc., FilmOn.TV, Inc., and FilmOn.com, Inc. (collectively, “FilmOnX”) in support of FilmOnX’s Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Stay.2 This Court should not consider either declaration, since FilmOnX has not provided any reason why its evidence could not have been presented along with its opposition to the Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, which the Court granted. Schoenbohm v. F.C.C., 204 F.3d 243, 250 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (evidence that was “previously available” is not “new evidence” 1 Plaintiffs are Fox Television Stations, Inc., Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Fox Broadcasting Company, NBC Subsidiary (WRC-TV) LLC, NBC Studios LLC, Universal Network Television, LLC, Open 4 Business Productions LLC, Telemundo Network Group LLC, American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Disney Enterprises, Inc., CBS Broadcasting Inc., CBS Studios Inc., Allbritton Communications Company, and Gannett Co., Inc. 2 FilmOnX filed identical declarations by Mr. David and Mr. Kutovyy in support of each of its motions. See Dkt. Nos. 36-2; 36-3; 37-2; 37-3. For the Court’s convenience, Plaintiffs refer to the declarations collectively. 1 2228495.1 supporting reconsideration); Olson v. Clinton, 630 F. Supp. 2d 61, 63 (D.D.C. 2009) (“Even if evidence is newly raised, it is not considered new evidence if it was previously available.”) (internal quotation marks omitted); Bao Ge v. Li Peng, 209 F.R.D. 250, 251 (D.D.C. 2000) (denying motion for reconsideration because the plaintiffs “failed to present any new evidence that was not previously available and which would alter this Court’s conclusions”); see also James v. England, 226 F.R.D. 2, 7 (D.D.C. 2004) (“[A]rguments that should have been previously raised, but are only raised for the first time in a motion for reconsideration, will not be entertained by this Court.”); Summitt Investigative Serv., Inc. v. Herman, 34 F. Supp. 2d 16, 26 (D.D.C. 1998) (“Furthermore, it is a cardinal tenet of federal-civil practice that a court — trial or appellate — will not consider matters raised for the first time in a motion for reconsideration.”). FilmOnX relies on Mr. David’s Declaration to substantiate the purported harms that compliance with this Court’s injunction will cause FilmOnX. Dkt. No. 36, at 8-9; Dkt. No. 37, at 5. FilmOnX’s complaints are primarily directed at the fact that this Court — in accordance with 17 U.S.C. § 502 — enjoined FilmOnX’s infringement nearly nationwide. See id. But FilmOnX was entirely aware of that possibility when it filed its opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction — indeed, it strenuously argued for the imposition of a geographically limited injunction. See Dkt. No. 31, at 27-29.3 That was FilmOnX’s opportunity to make the arguments it raises now. See Schoenbohm, 204 F.3d at 250; James, 226 F.R.D. at 7; Summitt Investigative Serv., 34 F. Supp. 2d at 26. Its failure to do so renders Mr. David’s Declaration improper, and so it should not be considered. Beyond being untimely, Mr. David’s Declaration suffers from additional serious 3 FilmOnX submitted statements from both of its current declarants in support of its opposition. 2 2228495.1 evidentiary problems. First, Mr. David relies on his alleged “knowledge” and “experience” “in the industry” to support the harms he claims will befall FilmOnX, see David Decl. ¶¶ 6-8, but has not provided any evidence suggesting that he has any knowledge or experience qualifying him to make such statements. Fed. R. Evid. 602; 701. Second, while Mr. David repeatedly speculates on the potential future implications of FilmOnX’s compliance, see David Decl. ¶¶ 710, including its effect on Aereo, FilmOnX has not produced a shred of evidence corroborating his prognostication beyond his own say-so. By way of an example, FilmOnX has not shown that complying with Judge Wu’s order — to the extent that it did — cost it even a single subscriber, despite the fact that the Central District of California’s injunction has been in place for nearly a year. Third, Mr. David claims that FilmOnX has invested, and will lose, millions of dollars by stopping its illegal retransmission. David Decl. ¶¶ 5, 7, 9-10. Better evidence for that statement obviously exists — FilmOnX’s actual books and records. FilmOnX has not provided any of them. Fed. R. Evid 1001; 1002. Moreover, Mr. Kutovyy’s Declaration, which FilmOnX relies on in its Motion for Reconsideration, should be excluded because the statements it contains are irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. FilmOnX cites Mr. Kutovyy’s Declaration to “clarify” the Court’s description of its infringing service. Dkt. No. 37, at 6-8. Specifically, FilmOnX has warmed over its argument that its service permits its users to access “individual copies” of Plaintiffs’ programming by relying on a complex system of single antennas and hard drive space. Id. This Court understood the individual nature of FilmOnX’s service. See Dkt. No. 33, at 1 (“FilmOn X assigns an individual user the content stream from one of thousands of minute antennas that it operates in major metropolitan areas, including Washington, D.C.”); id. at 5 (describing the “dynamic” option as “a specific antenna [] assigned to one specific individual 3 2228495.1 user only when that user is watching television via FilmOn X and [] assigned to a different user when the first user is done”); id. (“No single antenna is used by more than one user at a single time[.]”); id. at 20-21 (“FilmOn X advances the opposing view as to the meaning of the Transmit Clause and Congress’s intent in enacting it, asserting that FilmOn X enables only individual private performance of the copyrighted works and does not infringe Plaintiffs’ exclusive rights.”). As this Court correctly held, however, it doesn’t matter that FilmOnX’s service provides a single antenna to a single user at a time. Id. at 21-29. As this Court explained, Congress explicitly intended the Copyright Act to impose liability on retransmitting services regardless of the “device or process” they use. Id. at 25 (quoting 17 U.S.C. § 101). Mr. Kutovyy’s Declaration simply reiterates immaterial features of FilmOnX’s system. Therefore, the descriptions in Mr. Kutovyy’s Declaration do not make any fact “of consequence in determining the action” “more or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 401. Further, FilmOnX has provided no explanation for its failure to submit this information along with its opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, supplying a additional reason that it should not be considered by this Court. See Schoenbohm, 204 F.3d at 250; James, 226 F.R.D. at 7; Summitt Investigative Serv., 34 F. Supp. 2d at 26. Dated: September 11, 2013 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Paul Smith Paul Smith (D.C. Bar No. 358870) psmith@jenner.com JENNER & BLOCK LLP 1099 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20001-4412 Telephone: (202) 639-6000 4 2228495.1 Facsimile: (202) 639-6066 Richard L. Stone (admitted pro hac) rstone@jenner.com Julie A. Shepard (admitted pro hac) jshepard@jenner.com Amy Gallegos (admitted pro hac) agallegos@jenner.com JENNER & BLOCK LLP 633 West 5th Street, Suite 3600 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 239-5100 Facsimile: (213) 239-5199 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Fox Television Stations, Inc., Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, and Fox Broadcasting Company /s/ Robert Garrett Robert Alan Garrett (D.C. Bar No. 239681) Hadrian R. Katz (D.C. Bar No. 931162) Christopher Scott Morrow (D.C. Bar No. 491925) Murad Hussain (D.C. Bar No. 999278) ARNOLD & PORTER LLP 555 12th St., NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 942-5444 Facsimile: (202) 942-5999 James S. Blackburn (admitted pro hac) james.blackburn@aporter.com John C. Ulin (admitted pro hac) john.ulin@aporter.com ARNOLD & PORTER LLP 777 South Figueroa Street, 44th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 243-4000 Facsimile: (213) 243-4199 Attorneys for Plaintiffs NBC Subsidiary (WRCTV) LLC, NBC Studios LLC, Universal Network Television LLC, Open 4 Business Productions LLC, Telemundo Network Group LLC, American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Disney Enterprises, Inc., Allbritton Communications Company, CBS Broadcasting 5 2228495.1 Inc., CBS Studios Inc., and Gannett Co., Inc. 6 2228495.1

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?