Disney Enterprises, Inc. et al v. Hotfile Corp. et al

Filing 104

Plaintiff's MOTION for Protective Order PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS' ANTIPIRACY INVESTIGATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES by Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., Disney Enterprises, Inc., Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Universal City Studios Productions LLLP, Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Stetson, Karen)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 11-20427-JORDAN

DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC.,
TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATION,
UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS PRODUCTIONS LLLP,
COLUMBIA PICTURES INDUSTRIES, INC., and
WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
HOTFILE CORP., ANTON TITOV, and
DOES 1-10.
Defendants.
/

[PROPOSED] ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A
PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’ ANTIPIRACY
INVESTIGATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES
Upon consideration of Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Protective Order Regarding Plaintiffs’
Antipiracy Investigations and Enforcement Procedures, all the papers submitted in support
thereof:
The Motion is hereby GRANTED. The Court finds that there is good cause to issue the
protective order forbidding inquiry into certain matters pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26(c), as the information for which Plaintiffs seek protection is not relevant to this
action and any marginal relevance would be, in any event, outweighed by the potential prejudice
to Plaintiffs of disclosure. The Court further finds that Plaintiffs consistently maintain the
information sought in confidence, that the information represents substantial value to the
Plaintiffs, that the information would be valuable to infringers, that Plaintiffs invest substantial

62146.1

resources in its creation, and that it derives its value from that effort as well as from its secrecy,
and that Defendants have failed to make a showing of necessity of the requested information to
the claims at issue in this case.
1.

It is hereby ORDERED, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), that

the following information is protected from discovery:
a. Plaintiffs’ and their agents’ methods for locating and identifying
infringing files online;
b. Plaintiffs’ and their agents’ strategies and criteria for issuing notifications
of infringement;
c. Plaintiffs’ policies or decisions regarding the circumstances under which
they issue notifications of infringement to online persons or properties,
whether pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3) or otherwise; and
d. Plaintiffs’ communications with and instructions to the agents who
perform the tasks listed in paragraphs (a) through (c) on their behalf.
2.

It is hereby FURTHER ORDERED that such protection shall extend to both party

and third-party discovery, including but not limited to the subpoenas served by Defendants on
DtecNet, Inc.; BayTSP, Inc.; Peer Media Technologies; OpSec Security Group plc; and MiMTiD
Corp.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: ___________________, 2011

_____________________________
United States District Court Judge

2
62146.1