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

Filing 133

ORDER SETTING SCHEDULE: ( Trial set for 6/4/2012 before Judge Adalberto Jordan., Calendar Call set for 5/29/2012 09:00 AM before Judge Adalberto Jordan., Amended Pleadings due by 10/7/2011., Discovery due by 12/23/2011., Expert Discovery due by 12/23/2011., Joinder of Parties due by 10/7/2011., Motions due by 1/23/2012., Pretrial Stipulation due by 5/15/2012.), ORDER REFERRING CASE to Mediation. ( Mediation Deadline 1/13/2012.), ORDER REFERRING CERTAIN MOTIONS to Magistrate Judge John J. O'Sullivan. Signed by Judge Adalberto Jordan on 8/30/2011. (lh)

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

DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC. et al.,
Plaintiffs
vs.
HOTFILE CORP. et al.,
Defendants
________________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER SETTING SCHEDULE, REQUIRING MEDIATION , AND
REFERRING CERTAIN MOTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This case is set for trial during the Court’s two-week trial calendar beginning on June 4, 2012.
Calendar call will be held at 9 a.m. on May 29, 2012. No pre-trial conference will be held unless a party
requests one no later than 30 days prior to the calendar call or the Court determines that one is
necessary. The parties shall adhere to this schedule:
September 28, 2011

The parties shall notify the Court whether they consent to trial and final
disposition by Magistrate Judge O’Sullivan.

October 7, 2011

All motions to amend pleadings or join parties are filed.

October 28, 2011

Parties exchange expert witness summaries and reports required by
Local Rule 16.1.K.

December 2, 2011

Parties exchange rebuttal expert witness summaries and reports required
by Local Rule 16.1.K.

December 23, 2011

All discovery, including expert discovery, is completed.

January 13, 2011

Parties to have completed mediation.

January 23, 2011

All pre-trial motions other than motions in limine are filed.1

May 15, 2011

Parties to submit joint pre-trial stipulation and proposed jury instructions.

1

Hotfile Corp. and Anton Titov requested that they be allowed to file an earlier summary
judgment based solely on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s safe-harbor provision. That
request is denied. The facts related to any affirmative defense under the DMCA overlap with the
movie studios’ theory of liability. Accordingly, it is better if the factual dispute is handled at once,
after discovery. If the parties feel that the 20-page limitation on summary-judgment motions imposed
by the Local Rules is insufficient, they are free to move for an enlargement of the page limitation.

Within thirty days of the date of this order, the parties shall select a mediator certified under
Local Rule 16.2.B, shall schedule a time, date, and place for mediation, and shall jointly file a proposed
order scheduling mediation in the form specified by Local Rule 16.2.H. If the parties cannot agree on
a mediator, they shall notify the Clerk in writing as soon as possible and the Clerk shall designate a
certified mediator on a blind rotation basis. Counsel for all parties shall familiarize themselves with and
adhere to all provisions of Local Rule 16.2.
The parties shall submit their proposed jury instructions jointly, though they need not agree on
each or any proposed instruction. Where the parties do agree on a proposed instruction, that instruction
shall be set forth in roman typeface. Instructions proposed only by a plaintiff shall be underlined.
Instructions proposed only by a defendant shall be bold-faced. Every instruction must be supported by
citation of authority. The parties shall use as a guide the Eleventh Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions for
Civil Cases, including the directions to counsel contained therein. The parties shall submit their
proposed jury instructions on paper and on a CD in a format compatible with WordPerfect for Microsoft
Windows-based computers. Each exhibit must be labeled in accordance with the exhibit list in the joint
pre-trial stipulation and shall also bear the case number of this action.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and this District’s Magistrate Judge Rules, all non-dispositive
motions and discovery disputes, including those filed pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12,
13, and 14, in this case are referred to Magistrate Judge O’Sullivan. Motions for extensions of the pretrial motions deadline and trial are not referred to Magistrate Judge O’Sullivan. The parties shall comply
with the separate order on discovery procedure entered simultaneously with this order. When filing
motions and responses and replies to motions, the parties shall submit courtesy copies to Magistrate
Judge O’Sullivan.
The parties may stipulate to extend the time to answer interrogatories, produce documents, and
answer requests for admissions. The parties shall not file with the Court notices or motions
memorializing any such stipulation unless the stipulation interferes with the time set for completing
discovery, for hearing a motion, or for trial. Stipulations that would so interfere may be made only with
the Court’s approval. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 29. In addition to the documents enumerated in Local Rule
26.1.B, the parties shall not file notices of deposition with the Court. Strict compliance with the Local
Rules is expected, particularly with regard to motion practice. See Local Rule 7.1.

2

If the parties should seek to file anything under seal in this case, they must comply with Local
Rule 5.4.B.2, submitting a memorandum describing the information to be sealed and setting forth a
reasonable basis for departing from the general policy of public filings. The parties cannot override
Local Rule 5.4 through a joint protective order. In other words, if a party who has received material
from the opposing party, labeled confidential by that party, intends to file the material with the court,
that material cannot be filed with the court under seal just because it has been labeled confidential by
the opposing party. The parties must confer in preparing the motion to file under seal to ensure
compliance with Local Rule 5.4. Moreover, only material labeled confidential may be filed under seal.
Mere filings that reference confidential materials may not be filed under seal. If the parties are
successful in filing anything under seal, they must nevertheless file a redacted copy in the public record.
Any attempts to file matters under seal that do not comply with Local Rule 5.4 and this order will result
in the matters being filed in the public record.
If this matter settles and the parties want the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of
a settlement agreement, a copy of the agreement must be filed with the clerk in the public record. If the
settlement agreement does not contain confidential or proprietary information that parties wish to
redact, they must file a copy of the settlement agreement in the public record with the clerk a the time
they file the joint stipulation of dismissal. If the settlement agreement does contain confidential or
proprietary information that the parties wish to redact, they must accompany the joint stipulation of
dismissal with a separate motion to redact portions of the settlement agreement, and file a copy of the
redacted agreement in the public record with the clerk. In such a case, they should also submit a copy
of an un-redacted version of the settlement agreement to chambers for in camera review.
DONE

and ORDERED in chambers in Miami, Florida, this 30th day of August, 2011.

_______________________
Adalberto Jordan
United States District Judge
Copies to:

Magistrate Judge O’Sullivan
All counsel of record

3