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

Filing 138

ORDER granting 104 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Judge Adalberto Jordan on 9/1/2011. (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 ON MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
For the following reasons, Disney Enterprises, Inc.’s, Twentieth Century Fox Film
Corporation’s, Universal City Studios Productions LLLP’s, Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.’s, and
Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.’s motion for protective order [D.E. 104] is GRANTED .
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, discovery is broad. Nevertheless, discovery must
also be relevant: “Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant
to any party’s claim or defense . . . .” FED . R. CIV . P. 26(b).
Hotfile Corp.’s and Mr. Titov’s discovery requests ask that the movie studios explain how
they monitor, test, and examine whether to issue a Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedown
notice. As part of this request, Hotfile and Mr. Titov request communications between the movie
studios and their anti-piracy vendors (agents of the movie studios who try to discover copyright
infringement). At this point, I find these discovery requests to seek irrelevant information. Indeed,
at least one court has found a similar request to be irrelevant. See DirectTV, Inc. v. Trone, 209 F.R.D.
455, 460 (C.D. Cal. 2002). As the movie studios underscore, this case concerns Hotfile’s and Mr.
Titov’s actions, not the movie studios’ behavior.
In their response to the motion for a protective order, Hotfile and Mr. Titov raise several
arguments as to why their discovery requests seek relevant evidence. None, however, are availing.
For instance, Hotfile and Mr. Titov believe that these requests are relevant to the argument
that they had knowledge and control over the infringement on www.hotfile.com. I do not see,
however, how the actions by the movie studios relate to Hotfile’s and Mr. Titov’s knowledge and
control. Similarly, Hotfile and Mr. Titov argue that the information/material sought is relevant to

their compliance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s safe-harbor provision. Essentially,
Hotfile and Mr. Titov believe that the movie studios’ failure to ask them to remove some copyright
material may affect their DMCA affirmative defense. But the DMCA grants immunity so long as
Hotfile and Mr. Titov remove infringing material upon request by a copyright holder: “A service
provider shall not be liable for monetary relief . . . if the service provider . . . upon notification of
claimed infringement . . . , responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that
is claimed to be infringing.” 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(1)(C) (emphasis added). Hence, the movie studios’
failure to inform Hotfile and Mr. Titov to remove infringing material is irrelevant to Hotfile’s and
Mr. Titov’s affirmative defenses.
The only arguable claim to relevance that Hotfile and Mr. Titov have comes from paragraph
37 of the movie studios’ complaint, which states that Hotfile’s massive infringement forces the
movie studios to “play catch-up, constantly trying to identify and take down content Hotfile
encourages its users to upload and promote” [D.E. 1]. Yet, the rest of this allegation concerns
Hotfile’s and Mr. Titov’s actions, not the movie studios’. Thus, Hotfile and Mr. Titov’s request
seems irrelevant even here. Hotfile and Mr. Titov are free, of course, to ask the movie studios how
or why their efforts to play catch-up fail. If that answer depends on the movie studios’ attempts to
find infringing work—rather than depending on the operations of Hotfile—then Hotfile and Mr.
Titov may seek leave of the court to propound similar discovery requests in the future.
DONE and ORDERED in chambers in Miami, Florida, this 1st day of September, 2011.

_______________________
Adalberto Jordan
United States District Judge
Copy to:

All counsel of record

2