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

Filing 206

MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 180 MOTION to Compel the Production of Titov Deposition Ex. 27 [REDACTED] by Hotfile Corp.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4)(Munn, Janet)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 11-20427-WILLIAMS/TURNOFF
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.
HOTFILE CORP.,

/

Counterclaimant,
v.
WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC.,
Counterdefendant.

/

HOTFILE’S OPPOSITION TO WARNER’S MOTION TO COMPEL THE
PRODUCTION OF TITOV DEPOSITION EX. 27
This motion should never have been filed. And it should have been withdrawn.
Counterclaimant Hotfile Corp. (“Hotfile”) has reminded Counterdefendant Warner Bros.
Entertainment (“Warner”) that the motion was filed too late. Regrettably, and in contravention
of the Federal Rules and multiple provisions of the of the Protective Order entered in this case
[D.E. # 68], Warner has failed to withdraw its motion that seeks improperly to compel
production of a document inadvertently produced and properly “clawed back” by Hotfile. The
document is clearly protected work-product prepared at the request of trial counsel, and Warner’s

CASE NO. 11-20427-WILLIAMS/TURNOFF

argument for waiver based on inadvertent production is foreclosed by the terms of the Protective
Order.
Instead of withdrawing the motion and returning all copies of the document as required
by the Court’s Protective Order, Warner has forced Hotfile to incur the time and expense of
filing this opposition. The Protective Order requires any motion to compel an inadvertently
produced document to be filed within five court days of the request for the document's return.
Warner failed to do so. Warner filed this motion to compel—fourteen days after Hotfile
requested the return or destruction of the document, ignoring its obligations under the Protective
Order. Instead it violated the Court’s Order by introducing the recalled, inadvertently produced
document (it was required to return or destroy) at a deposition, and then refusing to allow the
court reporter to return the exhibit.
Warner’s untimely motion is based on the unsupported claim that Hotfile intended to
produce the document that it clawed back (twice), even though it withheld as privilege several
other copies of the same document. The Protective Order is unequivocal that a party must return
all copies of any inadvertently produced documents, that the inadvertent production of any
document “will not be deemed to waive any privilege or work product protection,” and that a
party seeking to compel production of an inadvertently produced document “may not assert as a
ground for the entering of [an order compelling production] the fact or circumstances of the
inadvertent production,” Warner’s motion to compel production of the Exhibit 27 to the
deposition of Anton Titov (“Titov Depo. Ex. 27”)—even if it had been filed within the Protective
Order's five day deadline—must fail. (Protective Order, D.E # 68, at ¶ 20).
BACKGROUND
During the course of the discovery, Hotfile has produced literally millions of pages of its
emails. (Declaration of Roderick M. Thompson in Supp. of Opp. to Mot. To Compel, attached
hereto as Exhibit A, at ¶ 2 (“Thompson Decl.”)). In reviewing and producing a tremendous
number of documents in the short time Hotfile diligently endeavored to pull and withhold from
production any privileged emails. Despite Hotfile’s efforts, a small amount of inadvertent

2

CASE NO. 11-20427-WILLIAMS/TURNOFF

production of some emails occurred. As the parties shifted to deposition discovery and began
their review of the voluminous number of produced emails in preparation for depositions, both
sides found it necessary to invoke the “claw back” procedure to request the other party to return
documents that had been inadvertently produced. Hotfile returned Warner’s inadvertently
produced documents without hesitation in compliance with the Federal Rules and the Court’s
Order. Warner did not. It improperly refused to return the inadvertently produced document
when the issue first surfaced at the Titov deposition. It then filed this improper and time-barred
motion to compel.
At the outset of the discovery process, the parties agreed to, and the Court entered, a
Stipulated Protective Order. (Stipulated Protective Order, D.E. # 68, at ¶ 20). Among other
things that order provided for the mandatory and prompt “return of any document…inadvertently
produced” without such recall being “deemed to waive any privilege or work product
protection.”. The Protective Order requires any motion to compel such a recalled document to
be filed within five days of the recall: “A party may move the Court for an order compelling
production [of an inadvertently produced] document, and may present the document to the Court
under seal within five (5) court days of receiving a request to return the document.” Id.
Moreover, the parties agreed that “the fact or circumstances of the inadvertent production”
cannot be “assert[ed] as a ground for the entering of…an order” compelling production of the
inadvertently produced document. Id.
Relying on the plain terms of the Order, Hotfile undertook the burdensome, time
consuming, and inexact task of producing a huge volume of documents to Plaintiffs as quickly as
possible. Over the course of the discovery process so far, Hotfile has produced more than 1.14
million documents; all of the Plaintiffs together in contrast have produced fewer than 30,000
documents. (Thompson Decl., at ¶ 2). As anticipated by the parties when they stipulated to the
Protective Order and, as is common in cases such as this in which millions of documents are
being produced, some privileged documents out of the millions produced were produced

3

CASE NO. 11-20427-WILLIAMS/TURNOFF

inadvertently. Promptly upon becoming aware of these inadvertently produced documents,
Hotfile asked for their return or destruction pursuant to mandatory terms of the Protective Order.
One of those documents, Titov Depo. Ex. 27, was produced under two Bates numbers,
because it was an email sent to multiple inboxes from which Hotfile collected and produced
documents. In its production, Hotfile located and withheld that document from several of the
custodians’ email inboxes. Copies from two of the inboxes were inadvertently produced. In
preparing for the three depositions of Hotfile’s principals to be taken in Bulgaria, Hotfile’s
attorneys reviewed the documents previously produced and located the two inadvertently
produced copies of Titov Depo. Ex. 27. The first copy, identified by the Bates number
(HF02866338) on its first page was recalled by email on November 28, 2011. (Thompson Decl.,
at ¶ 4, Ex. 1). Though the email recalling the first document asked for the destruction of “all
copies of these documents,” Hotfile also specifically identified and recalled the other copy of the
document, identified by Bates number HF00036777, on December 3, 2011—two days prior to
the deposition of Anton Titov as the 30(b)(6) representative for Hotfile. See (Declaration of Luke
Platzer, Ex. B, D.E.# 181-3, at p. 2).
Instead of destroying the document, or filing a motion to compel within five days of
receiving the first recall request as required under the Protective Order, counsel for Warner
marked HF02866338 as an exhibit to the deposition of Anton Titov in Bulgaria. Because the
deposition was in Bulgaria, and the attorneys who recalled Titov Depo. Ex. 27 were in the
United States, the attorney defending the Titov deposition did not have a complete list of
documents recalled available at the time of the deposition. (Thompson Decl., at ¶ 6).
Nevertheless, Counsel for Hotfile specifically and repeatedly objected on work product grounds
to questioning about the internal investigation Hotfile conducted at counsel’s instruction
regarding Warner’s improper deletion of files from Hotfile—the very subject of Titov Depo. Ex.
27. (Id. at ¶ 9). In particular, Counsel for Hotfile objected “‘to the extent that it calls for work
product information which commenced after the date of early March 2011’ when Hotfile first
started its work product protected investigation at the direction of my firm.” (Id. at ¶ 9 (quoting

4

CASE NO. 11-20427-WILLIAMS/TURNOFF

Ex. 3, 167:4-9) (Emphasis added)). Counsel for Warner nonetheless introduced the recalled
document, Ex. 27, and questioned Mr. Titov about it. Counsel for Hotfile relied on counsel for
Warner’s good faith compliance with the Protective Order, reasonably assuming that Warner
would not violate the Order by marking as Exhibits documents that Hotfile had recalled. (Id. at ¶
7). There was no intent to waive any work-product protection. Id.
After the deposition adjourned for the day, counsel for Hotfile investigated further and
discovered that the date in early March that the work product investigation began was March 2nd.
Noting that Ex. 27 was dated March 10, he immediately advised counsel for Warner by email
that same evening and requested the return of the document. (Id. at ¶ 10, Ex. 2). He repeated the
objection and again asked Warner to destroy all copies of the document in question when the
deposition resumed the next morning. (Thompson Decl., at ¶ 11). Counsel for Warner refused
and filed the present motion, ten court days after the document at issue was recalled.
ARGUMENT
1. Warner’s Motion Is Untimely
Where there is a valid court-issued Protective Order that addresses the process for
handling inadvertently produced documents, the terms of that order control. See Rally Mfg., Inc.
v. Federal-Mogul Corp., 2011 WL 2938270, at *4 (S.D. Fla. July 21, 2011) (“The Protective
Order is controlling over the waiver issue.”) (Torres, M.J). 1 The Protective Order agreed to by
the parties and issued by the court in this case provides such a clear and rigid procedure for
compelling production of an inadvertently produced document that the producing document later
recalls. Under the terms of that order, “A party may move the Court for an order compelling
production [of an inadvertently produced] document, and may present the document to the Court

1

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure also envision the recall of inadvertently produced
documents: “If information produced in discovery is subject to a claim of privilege or of
protection as trial-preparation material, the party making the claim may notify any party that
received the information of the claim and the basis for it. After being notified, a party must
promptly return ... the specified information and any copies it has [and] must not use or disclose
the information until the claim is resolved.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(B).

5

CASE NO. 11-20427-WILLIAMS/TURNOFF

under seal within five (5) court days of receiving a request to return the document.” (Stipulated
Protective Order, D.E. # 68, at ¶ 20). Hotfile recalled Titov Depo. Ex. 27 on November 28,
2011. (Thompson Decl., at ¶ 4, Ex. 1). Thus, if Warner wanted to file a motion seeking to
compel production of Titov Depo. Ex. 27, Warner was obligated to do so within five court days,
or by December 5, 2011. Warner did not do so. Instead, on December 5, Warner improperly
submitted the document as an exhibit in the deposition of Anton Titov as 30(b)(6) representative
for Hotfile, again violating the Protective Order. Warner waited an entire week after improperly
trying to use the recalled document at the deposition to file a motion compelling the production
of that document on December 12, 2011.
Under the plain terms of the Protective Order, Warner's motion is barred as untimely
filed. The Protective Order controls the timing of motions to compel inadvertently produced
documents, Warner's motion should be dismissed as untimely.
2. The Document In Question Is Plainly Work Product
Even if Warner had filed its motion within the time period required under the Protective
Order, its motion should be rejected, The document in question is plainly protected work
product and there has been no waiver. Warner’s motion devotes three sentences (and provides
no factual basis) to argue that Titov Depo. Ex. 27 is not protected by the attorney work product
doctrine. The sparsity of this argument reveals its implausibility. Warner admits that beginning
on March 2, 2011, Hotfile began a counsel-directed investigation of Warner's improper deletions
of material on Hotfile, and that the inadvertently produced document in question, dated March
10, 2011 relates to Hotfile's investigation of Warner. See (Mem. In Supp. Of Warner’s Mot. To
Compel, D.E. # 180, at p. 3). Despite this plain record, and without any countervailing facts
whatsoever, Warner makes the speculative claim that Titov Depo. Ex. 27 “memorializes the
conclusions of an investigation that Hotfile's counsel did not initiate, direct, or participate in.” Id.
How Warner draws the conclusion that a document dated March 10 could not possibly relate to
an investigation initiated by counsel on March 2 is baffling. Absent any evidence at all that
Titov Depo. Ex. 27 does not memorialize the admittedly counsel-initiated investigation that

6

CASE NO. 11-20427-WILLIAMS/TURNOFF

began on March 2, Warner's unsupported argument that Titov Depo. Ex. 27 is not work product
must fail. 2
3. Warner Has Failed To Show That The Document Was Not Produced Inadvertently
Much of Warner’s motion is devoted to arguing that the Titov Depo. Ex. 27 was not
inadvertently produced, but rather was the result of a supposed “tactical decision” to treat the
document as not protected by the work product doctrine. To support this patently false
hypothesis, Warner relies on one fact regarding the circumstances of the document’s
production—that Hotfile accidentally produced two copies of the document. The Protective
Order, however, forbids a party from asserting the circumstances of the inadvertent production as
a basis for a motion to compel, the entirety of Warner’s argument that the document was not
inadvertently produced constitutes another violation of the Protective Order. But, even if Warner
were allowed to assert the fact that two copies of the document were produced as evidence that
Hotfile produced it intentionally, its argument fails, since the fact that Hotfile produced only two
copies of the document (when the document itself shows that six different Hotfile-related email
boxes sent or received copies of the document) proves the opposite: that Hotfile intended to—
and did--withhold copies of the document as protected work product; two copies were produced
it by mistake.

2

Throughout the motion, Plaintiffs attempt to compare Titov Depo. Ex. 27 to the work product
investigation by Warner that Hotfile sought to compel. Hotfile argued that portions of the factual
information in Warner's investigation materials were not work product: specifically, whether
Warner owned the contents of the files identified in Hotfile's counterclaim. See (Mem. In Supp.
Mot. To Compel Warner Takedown Investigation, D.E. # 164). This factual information is not
work product, Hotfile contended, because it does not reflect any attorney legal opinions. The
difference between that information and Titov Depo. Ex. 27 proves why the latter is work
product: the Warner information is purely factual data about a pre-selected set of files (whether
Warner owns a file or not), whereas the information in Titov Depo. Ex. 27 relates to a list of files
selected at the direction counsel (which files to consider as a basis for a possible counterclaim
against Warner, and what information to collect about those files). That only a small subset of
the files in Warner's actual counterclaim are identified in Titov Depo. Ex. 27 shows that the
document reflects counsel's opinions as to how to evaluate the merits of a potential counterclaim.

7

CASE NO. 11-20427-WILLIAMS/TURNOFF

a. The Terms of The Protective Order Preclude Warner’s Argument.
In support of its argument that Hotfile's production of Titov Depo. Ex. 27 was intentional,
Warner presents only two facts: 1) Hotfile produced two copies of the document, and 2) in a
previous motion to compel, Hotfile argued that a wholly unrelated set of information was not
protected by the attorney work product doctrine. Warner combines the two unrelated and
inconsequential facts into a straw man that it tries (and fails) to knock down. But, by arguing
that Hotfile's production of two copies of Titov Depo. Ex. 27 proves that the production was not
inadvertent, Warner has violated the express terms of the Protective Order, which holds that a
party cannot seek an order compelling production of a recalled document by “assert[ing] as a
ground for the entering of such an order the fact or circumstances of the inadvertent production.”
(Stipulated Protective Order, D.E. # 68, at ¶ 20). Here, Warner expressly bases its motion on the
circumstances of Hotfile's production of Titov Depo. Ex. 27, arguing that the document was not
inadvertently produced because Hotfile produced two copies of the document, and even going so
far as to expressly cite “the circumstances” of the document’s production in support of its
argument. See (Mem. In Supp. Of Mot. To Compel, D.E. # 180 at p. 2 n. 1) (“the circumstances
as to [a different inadvertently produced document] and the document at issue in this motion are
dramatically different.”) That Hotfile produced two copies of Tito Depo. Ex. 27 is precisely the
type of “circumstances of the inadvertent production” that the Protective Order expressly forbids
from being the basis of a motion to compel. By putting forth that fact as the principal basis for
its claim that Hotfile's production of Titov Depo. Ex. 27 was not inadvertent, Warner has
violated the terms of the Protective Order, and its motion should be denied on that basis alone.
b. The Only Facts Warner Presents To Support Its Claim That Hotfile’s
Production Was Not Inadvertent Conclusively Proves That It Was Inadvertent.
Even if the Protective Order did not forbid Warner from pointing to the production of two
copies of Titov Depo. Ex. 27 as the basis for its motion to compel, the fact that Hotfile produced
two copies of the document actually disproves Warner's theory. Warner claims that because
Hotfile produced two copies of the document and previously argued that a wholly unrelated set

8

CASE NO. 11-20427-WILLIAMS/TURNOFF

of documents regarding an investigation done by Warner's non-legal personnel was not work
product, Hotfile must have intentionally produced Titov Depo. Ex. 27 in order to bolster its own
argument about the non-work product status of Warner's investigation. This theory is disproved
by the timing of Hotfile’s motion to compel production from Warner. As noted, Hotfile recalled
Ex. 27 on November 28, two days before the Court heard argument on Hotfile’s motion on
November 30. Under Warner’s conspiracy theory, Hotfile had produced Ex. 27 specifically to
“bolster” its argument to compel production by Warner. Why then would Hotfile have recalled
the document two days before the hearing on its motion? The answer of course is that Hotfile in
fact did not intend to produce the document and recalled it as soon as it became aware of its
inadvertent production.
Moreover, a simple reading of the email forwarding the document in question proves the
falsity of Warner's contention. Titov Depo. Ex. 27 was sent by the Hotfile support mailbox to
five recipients: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
and [e-mail]. See (Platzer Decl. Ex. C, D.E. # 181-4 at p. 1). Hotfile produced
documents from all of these mailboxes, and yet only produced two copies of the document in
question. See (Thompson Decl., at ¶ 3). If Hotfile intended to produce this document, it would
have produced six copies, not two. In fact, Hotfile intentionally withheld as attorney work
product the remaining copies it knew of at the time of production. Id. The metadata for
HF02866338 and HF00036777 show that the custodian of those documents are the Hotfile
general mailbox and Stanislaw Manov, respectively. Id. Copies of this same email that existed in
the other custodians’ email folders were withheld. Id. Warner does not and cannot explain why
Hotfile would have withheld all but two copies of the document in question if Hotfile decided
not to claim work product protection over the document.
The real reason the document was inadvertently produced is obvious: Hotfile produced
well over 1 million emails in this case. Id. at ¶ 2. There is ample precedent holding that, where,
as here, the inadvertently produced documents represent a tiny portion of the total documents
produced (less than 100 out of 1.14 million documents produced, or around 0.0087%), such

9

CASE NO. 11-20427-WILLIAMS/TURNOFF

production of privileged or protected documents is deemed inadvertent.. Outside the Box
Innovations, LLC v. Travel Caddy, Inc., 2007 WL 5155945, at *12 (N.D. Ga. 2007) (Where
inadvertently produced documents represented 0.007% of total produced documents, a finding of
inadvertent disclosure is likely). The Protective Order (and related case law) necessarily
acknowledges that, where a party is producing an enormous volume of documents, some
privileged or protected documents will be accidentally produced.
Hotfile endeavored to produce documents as quickly as possible in order to promptly and
cooperatively abide by its discovery obligations because it knew that the Stipulated Protective
Order allowed for the prompt and mandatory return of inadvertently produced documents.
Though Warner's motion repeatedly violates the plain language of the Protective Order, the
Order remains in force, and pursuant to its terms, Warner must return all copies of inadvertently
produced documents. The mere fact that Hotfile withheld as work product more copies of the
document in question than it produced proves that the production was inadvertent. Warner's
attempt to use that same fact to prove the opposite contention is, quite simply, preposterous.
4. Warner Has Failed To Show That Hotfile Waived Work Product Protection
Perhaps recognizing the weakness of its other arguments in support of its motion to
compel, Warner devotes much of its motion arguing that Hotfile has waived the work product
protection it claimed over Titov Depo. Ex. 27. Warner’s legal argument that Hotfile waived the
work product protection over Titov Depo. Ex. 27 is predicated on the idea that a “voluntary”
disclosure of work product protected material constitutes a waiver. See (Mem. In Supp. Of Mot.
To Compel, D.E. # 180, at p. 5 (“work product waived by voluntary disclosure of letter”)). But
since, as discussed infra, Hotfile’s production of Titov Depo. Ex. 27 was plainly inadvertent, and
since “a counsel's inadvertent disclosure of privileged documents during discovery is insufficient
by itself to constitute a waiver of the privilege,” Warner cannot establish waiver. In re Southeast
Banking Corp. Securities and Loan Loss Reserves Litigation, 212 B.R. 386, 392 (S.D. Fla.
1997).

10

CASE NO. 11-20427-WILLIAMS/TURNOFF

Moreover, instead of providing sound legal argument, Warner again tries to support its
flawed argument by misrepresenting the facts. Warner claims that Hotfile waived the work
product protection because Hotfile failed to object to questioning about the document and Mr.
Titov was “extensively questioned on the document.” See (Mem. In Supp. Of Mot. To Compel,
D.E. # 180, at p. 5). Both assertions are false. Warner questioned Mr. Titov about Titov Depo.
Ex. 27 for approximately 9 minutes of a two day deposition, three minutes of which were spent
discussing the identity of the recipients of the email without reference to the subject of the
document. See (Platzer Decl., Ex. A, D.E. #181-2, at pp. 4-7). Calling a few minutes
“extensive” is beyond hyperbole. Furthermore, prior to the introduction of Titov Depo. Ex. 27,
Hotfile did object on work product grounds to Warner’s questioning regarding the counseldirected investigation. Id. at p. 3 (“MR. THOMPSON: I’m going to object to the extents [sic]
that it calls for work product information which commenced after the date of early March
2011.”) Counsel for Hotfile defending Mr. Titov’s deposition did not have full access to the
recalled documents that were being handled by counsel in the United States two days prior to the
deposition. Nonetheless, when counsel for Hotfile became aware that Titov Depo. Ex. 27 had
been clawed back prior to the deposition, Hotfile specifically objected to that deposition exhibit,
both by email that same evening on the deposition following morning. See (Thompson Decl.,
Exs. 2 and 3, at 196:4-17; ¶ 9). During the deposition, when Hotfile objected to the use of Titov
Depo. Ex. 27 and requested its return or destruction under the Protective Order, counsel for
Hotfile was not aware that HF02866338 had previously been clawed back on November 28,
2011. See (Thompson Decl., at ¶ 6). Instead, counsel for Hotfile reasonably relied on counsel
for Warner to comply with the protective order and not to mark as an exhibit any documents that
had been specifically recalled under the Protective Order. Id. at ¶¶ 7 and 8.
After Warner filed the present motion, Hotfile informed Warner of the email sent
November 28, 2011 clawing back the document in question. Id. at ¶ 7. Despite being made
aware of the earlier recall of the document (and thus knowing that its motion was untimely),
Warner refused to withdraw the present motion. Id.

11

CASE NO. 11-20427-WILLIAMS/TURNOFF

Since Warner inappropriately introduced a properly recalled document at the deposition,
Warner's bad faith further mitigates against a finding of waiver. Allowing a party to ignore the
terms of a court order and repeatedly try to slip a properly recalled document by the opposing
party (especially at a deposition in Bulgaria), claiming waiver when the party doesn't object each
time in assuming that there will be compliance with the Court’s orders, constitutes an abuse of
the judicial process and a huge waste of time. Warner cannot openly violate the terms of a court
order and argue waiver because of Hotfile's assumption that Warner's counsel would not engage
in such misconduct. Warner should not be allowed to profit from its malfeasance, and the court
should reject Warner's motion.
Finally, Warner’s bringing this motion to compel and especially its failure to withdraw
the motion when it learned (if it did not already know) that Ex. 27 had been recalled two weeks
before filing the motion, was clearly not “substantially justified” by any definition thereby
mandating an award of Hotfile’s “reasonable expenses incurred in opposing the motion,
including attorneys fees” mandatory under Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 37(a)(5)(B)
CONCLUSION
Warner’s motion to compel production of Titov Deposition Ex. 27 violates the Protective
Order issued by the court in this case, in both substance and form. Accordingly, Warner’s
motion to compel should be denied and Hotfile should be awarded its “reasonable expenses
incurred in opposing the motion, including attorneys fees” under Fed. Rule Civ. Proc.
37(a)(5)(B).

12

CASE NO. 11-20427-WILLIAMS/TURNOFF
DATED: December 27, 2011

By: /s/ Roderick M. Thompson
Roderick M. Thompson (admitted pro hac vice)
Email: [e-mail]
Andrew Leibnitz (admitted pro hac vice)
Email: [e-mail]
Anthony P. Schoenberg (admitted pro hac vice)
Email: [e-mail]
Deepak Gupta (admitted pro hac vice)
Email: [e-mail]
Janel Thamkul (admitted pro hac vice)
Email: [e-mail]
FARELLA BRAUN + MARTEL LLP
235 Montgomery St.
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: [phone]
Telecopy: 415.954.4480
And
/s/ Janet T. Munn
Janet T. Munn, Fla. Bar No. 501281
Email: [e-mail]
Rasco Klock
283 Catalonia Avenue, Suite 200
Coral Gables, Fl 33134
Telephone: [phone]
Telecopy: 305.476.7102
And
/s/Valentin Gurvits
Valentin Gurvits (Admitted pro hac vice)
Email: [e-mail]
BOSTON LAW GROUP
825 Beacon Street, Suite 20
Newton Center, MA 02459
Telephone: [phone]
Telecopy: 617.928.1802
Counsel for Defendants Hotfile Corporation
and Anton Titov

13

CASE NO. 11-20427-WILLIAMS/TURNOFF

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on December 27, 2011, the foregoing document was served on all
counsel of record or pro se parties identified below either via transmission of Notices of
Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those counsel or
parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing.
By: /s/Janet T. Munn
Janet T. Munn

Karen L. Stetson, Fla. Bar No.: 742937
GRAY-ROBINSON, P.A.
Email: [e-mail]
1211 Brickell Avenue
Suite 1600
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: [phone]
Telecopy: 305.416.6887

Karen R. Thorland, Esq. (Pro Hac Vice)
Senior Content Protection Counsel
Motion Picture Association of America, Inc.
15301 Ventura Boulevard Building E
Sherman Oaks, CA
Telephone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

Steven B. Fabrizio (Pro Hac Vice )
Email: [e-mail]
Duane C. Pozza (Pro Hac Vice )
Email: [e-mail]
Luke C. Platzer (Pro Hac Vice )
Email: [e-mail]
JENNER AND BLOCK, LLP
1099 New York Ave, N.W.
Suite 900
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: [phone]
Telecopy: 202.639.6066

14