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

Filing 293

MOTION Objections to Magistrate Judge's Order Hotfile's Objections to Magistrate Judge's Order Regarding Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Titov Deposition Exhibit 27 [PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION] by Hotfile Corp.. (Munn, Janet)

PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 11-CIV-20427-WILLIAMS/TURNOFF
DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
HOTFILE CORP., et al.,
Defendants.

/

HOTFILE CORP.,
Counterclaimant,
v.
WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC.,
Counter-Defendant.

/

HOTFILE’S OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S ORDER REGARDING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL TITOV DEPOSITION EXHIBIT 27
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A), Local Magistrate Rule 4(a)(1), and Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(a), Hotfile Corp. (“Hotfile”) respectfully submits its Objections to Magistrate Judge William
C. Turnoff’s January 13, 2012 Order (“Order”) [D.E. # 227] granting in part and deferring in part
Plaintiff Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc.’s (“Warner”) Motion to Compel Production of Titov
Deposition Exhibit 27 [D.E. #180].
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff movie studios apparently believe that they may selectively comply with the
Court’s orders and rules. Regrettably, the violations described below are not an isolated
occurrence.1 Nor can they be dismissed as merely accidental or unknowing. While a single
violation might be excused, the repeated disregard of the Court’s rules cannot be. Indeed, after

1

See Motion And Memorandum of Law of Defendants Hotfile Corporation and Anton Titov To
Strike Plaintiffs’ Putative “Rebuttal” Report of Dr. Richard Waterman Etc., [D.E. # 217], filed
January 9, 2012.

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED