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

Filing 301

MOTION for Summary Judgment >WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC.'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION (PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION)< by Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.. Responses due by 3/15/2012 (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Scott A. Zebrak in Support of Warner's Motion for Summary Judgment (public redacted version), # 2 Exhibit A to Declaration of S. Zebrak, # 3 Exhibit B to Declaration of S. Zebrak, # 4 Affidavit Declaration of Dr. Ian Foster in Support of Warner's Motion for Summary Judgment (public redacted version), # 5 Exhibit A to Declaration of I. Foster, # 6 Affidavit Declaration of david Kaplan in Support of Warner's Motion for Summary Judgment (public redacted version), # 7 Affidavit Declaration of Kerry Hopkins in Support of Warner's Motion for Summary Judgment (public redacted version), # 8 Exhibit A to Declaration of K. Hopkins, # 9 Affidavit Declaration of Jennifer Yeh in Support of Warner's Motion for Summary Judgment (public redacted version), # 10 Exhibit A to Declaration of J. Yeh, # 11 Exhibit B to Declaration of J. Yeh, # 12 Exhibit C to Declaration of J. Yeh, # 13 Exhibit D to Declaration of J. Yeh, # 14 Exhibit E to Declaration of J. Yeh, # 15 Exhibit F to Declaration of J. Yeh, # 16 Exhibit G to Declaration of J. Yeh, # 17 Exhibit H to Declaration of J. Yeh, # 18 Exhibit I to Declaration of J. Yeh, # 19 Exhibit J to Declaration of J. Yeh, # 20 Exhibit K to Declaration of J. Yeh, # 21 Exhibit L to Declaration of J. yeh, # 22 Exhibit M to Declaraton of J. Yeh, # 23 Exhibit N to Declaration of J. Yeh, # 24 Exhibit O to Declaration of J. Yeh, # 25 Exhibit P to declaration of J. Yeh, # 26 Exhibit Q to Declaration of J. Yeh, # 27 Text of Proposed Order)(Stetson, Karen)

EXHIBIT A

Highly Confidential

Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

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.
)
__________________________)
H I G H L Y

C O N F I D E N T I A L

(Pursuant to protective order, the following
transcript has been designated highly
confidential)
DEPOSITION OF MATTHEW LYNDE, Ph.D.
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2011

22
23
24
25

REPORTED BY: Linda Vaccarezza, CSR No. 10201
JOB NO.: 44313
TSG Reporting - Worldwide

[phone]

Highly Confidential

Page 2
1
2
3
4

DECEMBER 16, 2011

5

10:07 A.M.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Deposition of MATTHEW LYNDE, Ph.D.,
held at the offices of Farella,
Braun & Martel, 235 Montgomery
Street, San Francisco, California, before
Linda Vaccarezza, a Registered
Professional Reporter and Certified
Shorthand Reporter of the State of
California.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
TSG Reporting - Worldwide

[phone]

Highly Confidential

Page 3
1
2

3

4
5

A P P E A R A N C E S:
ATTORNEY FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
JENNER & BLOCK
BY: STEVEN B. FABRIZIO, ESQ.
1099 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001

6
7

8

9

10

ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANTS
HOTFILE CORP., AND ANTON TITOV:
FARELLA, BRAUN & MARTEL
BY: RODERICK M. THOMPSON, ESQ.
235 Montgomery Street
San Francisco, California 94104

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

TSG Reporting - Worldwide

[phone]

Highly Confidential

Page 21
1

Brothers only one takedown notice that was

2

erroneous, do you believe that that would cause

3

injury to Hotfile's business reputation?
MR. THOMPSON:

4

Objection.

5

Incomplete hypothetical.

6

THE WITNESS:

Well, if I

7

understand your question correctly --

8

Q.

9
10

If you don't, I'm happy to

clarify.
A.

Once again, as I said earlier, it

11

depends on some more context to the wrongful

12

takedown.

13

deal of publicity, and impact and awareness

If, for example, there was a great

14

25

Q.

Anything else?
TSG Reporting - Worldwide

[phone]

Highly Confidential

Page 22
1

A.

If a wrongful takedown notice

2

resulted in, for example, erroneous termination

3

of a premium account, that could also have

4

quantifiable impact.

5
6
7

Q.

What if it resulted in an

erroneous termination of a non-premium account?
A.

My understanding of Hotfile's

8

business is only premium accounts generate

9

revenue for Hotfile, at least direct revenue.
So if I understand your question

10
11

correctly, the wrongful takedown of a non-premium

12

account would only potentially have an indirect

13

impact on revenue.

14

Q.

Just to get us back to the list,

15

you referred to a great deal of publicity whether

16

the takedown might be related to a popular file,

17

or whether it resulted in an erroneous

18

termination.
Is there anything else?

19
20

A.

Those are the principle

TSG Reporting - Worldwide

[phone]

Highly Confidential

Page 24

15

Q.

Well, broadening the question to

16

go beyond what you term the "wrongful takedown

17

notices," just in the way you do your

18

calculations, are any takedown notices treated

19

differently from any others in terms of the

20

economic impact they cause?

21

A.

No.

In the analysis I've done, I

22

have not distinguished between the impacts of

23

what are mostly, as I understand it, lawful and

24

correct takedown notices from wrongful takedown

25

notices, in terms of individual impact.
TSG Reporting - Worldwide

[phone]

Highly Confidential

Page 25

Q.

1

And within the category that you

2

term "wrongful takedown notices," is it correct

3

that you also don't distinguish from one notice

4

to the other in terms of its estimated economic

5

impact?

6

A.

That is correct.

I was not able

7

to distinguish between individual types of

8

wrongful takedown notices.

9

as a collectivity.

10

Q.

I've considered them

Just to confirm, you did not

11

consider as to any individual takedown notices,

12

the publicity or public impact that that

13

particular notice had, correct?
MR. THOMPSON:

14
15

Objection.

Overbroad and vague.
THE WITNESS:

16

I did not do that

17

kind of analysis, apart from gaining an

18

awareness of -- of types of files, for

19

example, that might have been wrongfully

20

taken down.

21

Q.

And is it also correct that in

22

your analysis you did not consider whether any

23

individual notice referred to a file that was

24

particularly popular or not?

25

MR. THOMPSON:
TSG Reporting - Worldwide

Objection.
[phone]

Vague.

Highly Confidential

Page 26

THE WITNESS:

1

That is correct.

I

2

did not have the means to potentially

3

calibrate individual wrongful takedowns

4

with the popularity rating of particular

5

files.

6

Q.

And did you look to see whether

7

individual takedown notices resulted in, I think

8

you termed it "the erroneous termination of a

9

premium account"?
A.

10

I did not look to see if there was

11

a particular link from a particular wrongful

12

takedown to a particular termination of a premium

13

account.
Q.

14

So it's fair to say, considering

15

the category of takedown notices that you

16

considered wrongful, you considered them as a

17

group and not individually at all; is that

18

correct?

19
20

MR. THOMPSON:

Objection.

Overbroad and vague.

TSG Reporting - Worldwide

[phone]

Highly Confidential

Page 27

during this period of time.

1

And under that assumption, I

2
3

have performed my analysis looking at the

4

collection of alleged wrongful takedown

5

notices.

6

Q.

7

individually?
A.

8
9
10

And not looking at any of them
And I was not able to look at any

particular takedown notice individually, that's
correct.
Q.

11

And I appreciate your

12

clarification about "wrongfully," you may have

13

just saved my spa.
In my earlier question about

14
15

Is there, in your professional

21
22

judgment, a de minimis number of erroneous user

23

terminations that you would agree as a practical

24

matter doesn't result in any measurable injury to

25

Hotfile?
TSG Reporting - Worldwide

[phone]

Highly Confidential

Page 28

MR. THOMPSON:

1
2

Objection.

Vague.

And incomplete hypothetical.
THE WITNESS:

3

Well, I'm not sure I

4

completely understand the context of the

5

question.

6

that there was a wrong termination that

7

would not have occurred but for a

8

wrongful takedown, the loss of that

9

subscription would indeed be a

But if it could be established

10

quantifiable harm to Hotfile.

11

Q.

12

Even if it was just a single

wrongful termination of a premium account?

13

A.

Yes.

14

Q.

And what if it was a single

15

erroneous termination of a non-subscription,

16

non-premium account?

17

A.

If I understand your question

18

correctly -- we discussed this a little bit

19

before -- that possibly could indirectly lead to

20

the loss of a paying account, and therefore

21

revenue, but the connection would be, as I

22

understand, a little more difficult to

23

establish.

24
25

But if it could be established,
then indeed the loss of a subscription account
TSG Reporting - Worldwide

[phone]

Highly Confidential

Page 29
1
2

would be an economic harm to Hotfile.
Q.

In your analysis, did you attempt

3

to make that connection between terminations of

4

non-premium users and economic harm to Hotfile?

5

A.

I did not.

6

Q.

I want to talk through the

7

protocol you used for your damages calculations,

8

and so let's turn to Lynde Exhibit 1, which is

9

the revised schedule.
If you need to refer to your

10
11

report at any time, that's one of the reasons I

12

put it in front of you.

13

to, but feel free if you do.

I'm not going to need

14

A.

Thank you.

15

Q.

Let's first start with the damages

16

model that's reflected on Schedules 1 and 1.1.
First, can you describe for us the

17
18

differences in how you -- in the calculations

19

that are reflected on Schedule 1 and 1.1?

20

A.

Yes, there's fundamentally only

21

one difference between Schedule 1 and Schedule

22

1.1, and that is the assumed beginning date of

23

TSG Reporting - Worldwide

[phone]

Highly Confidential

Page 75

Does that model assume that each

5
6

takedown notice sent by Warner, whether properly

7

or erroneously, is responsible equally for each

8

dollar of lost profits due to Warner that you've

9

calculated?

10

MR. THOMPSON:

11

THE WITNESS:

Objection.

Vague.

If I understand your

12

question correctly, with other things

13

equal it does presume an equal impact of

14

takedown notices ultimately, whether they

15

be correct takedown notices or wrongful

16

takedown notices, on their average

17

impact, that is correct.

18

Q.

Well, this question actually --

19

this is -- the "all things being equal" doesn't

20

really apply, does it?

21

calculation here and there's a model.

22

Because there's a

So what I'm really trying to

23

figure out is in the model that you've actually

24

calculated, is there the assumption that each

TSG Reporting - Worldwide

[phone]

Highly Confidential

Page 83
1

be.
And according to the structure

2
3

of this model if there are takedown

4

notices and those are involved with the

5

reduction in premium accounts given in

6

that interaction, that would be part of

8

Q.

9

And that is one of the assumptions

of your model, is it not, that takedown notices

10

result in lost revenues and lost profits

11

regardless of whether they are wrongful or not

12

wrongful?
MR. THOMPSON:

13
14

Objection.

Assumes

facts.
THE WITNESS:

15

Well, in a general

16

sense, that is correct.

17

Q.

So then is it fair to say that the

18

model that you've used assumes that -- well,

19

maybe I should put it a different way.

20

In the model that you have used,

21

takedown notices that have not been considered

22

wrongful are responsible for the bulk of the lost

23

profits that Hotfile suffered from February 2011

24

through September 7, 2011; is that correct?

25

A.

In the model that I've considered
TSG Reporting - Worldwide

[phone]

Highly Confidential

Page 84
1

here in terms of estimating damages to Hotfile

2

from wrongful notices, it is correct.
As I consider that -- as I

3
4

indicated earlier this morning, the interaction

5

between the takedown notice process, which I

6

understand provides notice of copyrighted subject

7

matter which shouldn't be on the website and

8

ultimately that might be related with notice to

9

up loaders, that if they upload copyrighted

10

material they will be terminated, that the

11

termination process occurs.

12

associated with premium accounts, that can result

13

in a loss in revenue.
Q.

14

And if that's

And I'm not actually looking to

15

get sort of behind the relationship between

16

notices and terminations just yet, I'm just

17

talking about the model that you've actually

18

applied.

19

It calculates a lost profits that

20

Hotfile has suffered from February 2011 through

21

TSG Reporting - Worldwide

[phone]

Highly Confidential

Page 87
1
2

be a part of the model, yes.
Q.

And the causal links that you

3

remember talking about was that it's possible

4

that not all of those correct takedown notices

5

would have resulted in terminations?
MR. THOMPSON:

6
7

facts.

9

Assumes

Calls for a legal conclusion.
THE WITNESS:

8

Objection.

If I understand your

question correctly, as a matter of

10

economics, yes.

There would be a

11

necessity to assess the causal links from

12

the correct takedown notices.

13

Q.

21

Q.

And again by the same token, you

22

would want to assess the impact on all of those

23

correct takedown notices on whether there were

24

terminations of premium users?

25

MR. THOMPSON:
TSG Reporting - Worldwide

Same objections.
[phone]

Highly Confidential

Page 88

THE WITNESS:

1

In parallel to the

2

discussion I put forward this morning

3

about the structure of the model, yes.

4

That would be a similar and parallel

5

assessment.

6

Q.

And you would want to assess

7

whether those correct takedown notices resulted

8

in the taking down of particularly popular files,

9

correct?
MR. THOMPSON:

10
11

THE WITNESS:

Vague

and assumes facts.

12

Objection.
As I think I

13

mentioned, that might be a factor that

14

might be considered in such a necessity.

15

Q.

So in considering whether the

16

correct takedown notices were responsible for all

17

of the lost profits that aren't attributable to

18

the wrongful takedown notices, is there anything

19

TSG Reporting - Worldwide

[phone]

Highly Confidential

Page 91

18

being to estimate the lost profit impact

19

due to wrongful takedowns.

20

in that chain in terms of an assessment

21

of an impact of rightful takedowns, as I

22

said, would need to be an assessment of

23

these other factors that would be related

24

to potential impact on revenue, which we

25

discussed, and including the change in
TSG Reporting - Worldwide

But included

[phone]

Highly Confidential

Page 92
1

Hotfile policy in terms of the

2

termination three strike rule in

3

February.

4

Q.

So in order to make a final

5

determination as to whether the rest of the lost

6

profits are attributable to the correct notices

7

you would need to look at things like the

8

publicity associated with them, whether they are

9

related to popular files, whether they resulted

10

in erroneous termination or terminations of

11

premium account users, and the rest of those

12

factors that we talked about earlier?
MR. THOMPSON:

13
14

Objection.

Overbroad and asked and answered.
THE WITNESS:

15

If I understand your

16

question correctly, I believe indeed

17

those need to be assessed.

18

Q.

And in your damages model, looking

19

at lost profits due to wrongful notices, did you

20

look at any of those considerations on an

21

individual basis?

22
23
24
25

MR. THOMPSON:

Objection.

Overbroad and vague.
THE WITNESS:

Given my review of

the evidence I was not aware, with
TSG Reporting - Worldwide

[phone]

Highly Confidential

Page 93
1

respect to the wrongful notices of

2

information, which would specifically

3

apply to the wrongful notice situation,

4

which is what I was focusing on.

5

Q.

I'm just trying to understand why

6

you were prepared to opine without looking at

7

those considerations in particular, why the

8

wrongful notices resulted in certain lost

9

profits, but you're not prepared to sit here and

10

opine as to why the rightful notices resulted in

11

the rest of the lost profits.

12

parallel considerations to me.
MR. THOMPSON:

13
14

They seem to be
Objection.

That's

really not a question.
THE WITNESS:

15
16

repeat the question?

17

Q.

Sorry, could you

Sure.

TSG Reporting - Worldwide

[phone]

Highly Confidential

Page 97
1

Bulgaria I saw.
But in any event, Mr. Titov

2
3

testified that if a file is actually infringing,

4

and it's removed from Hotfile due to a notice,

7

Do you agree that Hotfile is not

8

injured by taking down a file that is, in fact,

9

copyright infringing?
MR. THOMPSON:

10

Objection.

Vague.

11

Calls for a legal conclusion, and to the

12

extent it states Mr. Titov's testimony.
MR. FABRIZIO:

13
14

I'll take my

chances on that one.
THE WITNESS:

15

Well, I'm not sure I

16

understand the full context of the

17

question, because it's my understanding

18

that Hotfile has a policy of not allowing

19

infringing material and taking down

20

material for which it receives notice

21

that it's infringing, so that would not

22

be a part of its expectation of revenue.

23

Q.

So infringing files are not part

24

of Hotfile's expectation of revenue, to your

25

understanding?
TSG Reporting - Worldwide

[phone]

Highly Confidential

Page 98
1

A.

That is my understanding, yes.

2

Q.

And do you have that understanding

3
4

through people at Hotfile?
A.

Not specifically, but from my

5

review of the materials and my understanding of

6

Hotfile's policy of taking down material for

7

which it receives notice that the copyright owner

8

does not concur that that is appropriately on the

9

Hotfile site.

10
11

And that's what Hotfile does, it

takes those files down.
Q.

So from an economic perspective,

12

if Hotfile removes from its site a file that is,

13

in fact, copyright infringing, that does not

14

affect Hotfile's expected revenues?

15
16
17

MR. THOMPSON:

Objection.

Vague

and overbroad.
THE WITNESS:

Well, for -- with

18

respect to its policy of not having

19

infringing files and taking them down

20

timely when they have received notice,

21

which I understand is their policy and

22

obligation, yes.

23

that business models is based on users

24

using the site to store and share files

25

for which they have rights.

It's my understanding

TSG Reporting - Worldwide

[phone]

Highly Confidential

Page 99

Q.

1

So if Warner Brothers had

2

mistakenly sent a takedown notice to Hotfile for

3

a file that in fact contained a Disney movie, an

4

infringing copy of a Walt Disney movie, is

5

Hotfile injured by removing the infringing copy

6

of the Disney movie?
MR. THOMPSON:

7

Objection.

Calls

for a legal conclusion.

8

THE WITNESS:

9

Well, if I

10

understand the context of your question,

11

perhaps not specifically with respect to

12

that file, but there are other potential

13

impacts on the business in terms of its

14

operations and its goodwill and

15

reputation.

16

Q.

There are other potential impacts

17

on the business and its goodwill as a result of

18

Hotfile removing an infringing copy of a Disney

19

movie?
A.

20

Not from a -- as I said in my

21

answer, not from a specific removal, which is

22

appropriate, and according to its policy, no.
Q.

23
24
25

Well, let me just put it this

way.
Does it matter in terms of
TSG Reporting - Worldwide

[phone]

Highly Confidential

Page 100
1

Hotfile's lost profits or -- strike that.
In terms of injury to Hotfile,

2
3

does it make a difference whether Warner Brothers

4

sends a notice for an infringing copy of a Disney

5

movie, or Disney sends a notice for infringing

6

copy of a Disney movie?
MR. THOMPSON:

7

Objection.

8

Incomplete hypothetical.

Vague.

9

THE WITNESS:

If I understand your

10

question correctly, no.

Because in

11

either case it is material that the

12

copyrighted owner does not agree belongs

13

on the website.

14

Q.

Mr. Titov also testified that if a

15

copyrighted owner ratified Warner Brother's

16

authority to have sent a notice to Hotfile, then

17

Hotfile would not consider that notice to be

18

wrongful.

19

Given our prior discussion, do you

20

agree that if Warner sends a takedown notice to

21

Hotfile for a work that is in fact infringing,

22

and that the copyright owner later ratifies

23

Warners having sent the notice, do you agree that

24

TSG Reporting - Worldwide

[phone]

Highly Confidential

Page 102
1

not be considered legally as a wrongful

2

takedown notice, then that would have a

3

straightforward impact on my model for

4

Exhibit 1.

5

Q.

6

Yes, but you've reduced my

question to math.

7

A.

That's my favorite area.

8

Q.

I know, one of mine, too.

9

I'm a

frustrated economist and technologist.

10

So let me try and put a little bit

12

You have previously testified that

13

if a file is actually infringing, the impact to

14

Hotfile is the same regardless of who sends

15

Hotfile the notice, correct?

16

MR. THOMPSON:

Objection.

17

and misstates testimony.

18

THE WITNESS:

Vague

If I'm recalling the

19

earlier question within the context of

20

the -- within the context that I

21

understand, if it's a copyrighted

22

material that shouldn't be on the

23

website, yes.

24

sends the notice in terms of economic

25

impact.

It doesn't matter who

TSG Reporting - Worldwide

[phone]

Highly Confidential

Page 106

17

Q.

Well, Mr. Titov testified that in

18

that case where a user was assigned three strikes

19

without counting any of the Warner strikes, that

20

Hotfile did not consider -- did not consider that

21

a wrongful termination.
In your understanding of the

22
23

Hotfile system, do you have reason to disagree

24

with him?

25

MR. THOMPSON:
TSG Reporting - Worldwide

Excuse me.
[phone]

Highly Confidential

Page 107
1

Objection.

2

Incomplete hypothetical.

Overbroad.
You can answer.

3

THE WITNESS:

4

I do not have any

5

reason to agree with him --

6

Q.

Agree or disagree?

7

A.

I do not have any reason to

8
9

disagree with him, so...
Q.

Take it out of the negatives.
Given your understanding of the

10
11

Hotfile system and its policy, if a user has

12

three strikes without counting any strikes from

13

Warner notices, that file -- that user is

14

properly terminated, correct?
MR. THOMPSON:

15
16

Assumes facts.

Incomplete hypothetical.

THE WITNESS:

17

Again, objection.
Given my

18

understanding of Hotfile's policy and

19

their implementation of the policies

20

since February, that user would be

21

terminated.

22

Q.

TSG Reporting - Worldwide

[phone]

Highly Confidential

Page 108

We have previously talked about a

3
4

situation where a user was terminated based on a

5

wrongful notice, and I believe you referred to

6

that as a wrongful termination.
If a user was terminated because

7
8

of three strikes having nothing to do with Warner

9

notices, you would not consider that a wrongful

10

termination, would you?
MR. THOMPSON:

11
12

Objection.

Calls

for a legal conclusion.
THE WITNESS:

13

If I'm understanding

14

the context of the question, that would

15

be correct.

16

Q.

Have you analyzed whether that

17

ever happened, whether any of the users that were

18

terminated -- strike that.
Have you ever analyzed whether any

19
20

of the users that received strikes based on the A

21

through D notices already had three strikes

22

without counting the strikes assigned by the

23

Warner notices?

24

A.

I have not done that analysis.

TSG Reporting - Worldwide

[phone]

Highly Confidential

Page 130

2:00 p.m.)

1
2

BY MR. FABRIZIO:

3

Q.

4

was lunch?

5

A.

6

Q.

10

Q.

Good afternoon, Dr. Lynde.
Good afternoon.

How

It was okay.

You would agree with me, would you

11

not, that if Hotfile only began assigning strikes

12

based on notices on February 18, 2011, that any

13

of the files on Exhibit A through D that were the

14

subject of notices sent before February 18, 2011

15

could not have resulted in users being terminated

16

as a result of the Warner notices?

17

MR. THOMPSON:

Objection.

18

Incomplete hypothetical.

19

THE WITNESS:

If I understand your

20

question correctly, and the date of the

21

initiation of the policy, for involuntary

22

terminations due to that policy, I

23

believe that would be correct.

TSG Reporting - Worldwide

[phone]

Highly Confidential

Page 170

5

Do you have any evidence, and did

6

you consider any evidence that any Hotfile user

7

failed to purchase a premium account as a result

8

of the takedown notices reflected on Exhibits A

9

through D of the counterclaim?

10

A.

Failed to purchase an account?

11

Well, that -- I don't believe that data set would

12

exist since those are all the people for which

13

there would be no records.

14

Q.

So then the answer would be, no,

15

you don't?

16

A.

Nor would any exist logically.

17

Q.

Do you have any evidence that any

You're not aware of any evidence?

18

user failed to purchase a premium Hotfile account

19

because of any Warner Brothers takedown notices?

20

A.

Once again, if I understand the

21

question correctly, there wouldn't be any such

22

evidence since those are all the subscribers that

23

are -- potential subscribers that are invisible

TSG Reporting - Worldwide

[phone]

Highly Confidential

Page 171
1

Q.

Okay.

Are you aware of any

2

evidence that any Hotfile premium user

3

voluntarily cancelled their subscription as a

4

result of any of the takedowns reflected on

5

Exhibits A through D of the counterclaim?

6

A.

I am not aware of specific

7

Can you identify a single Hotfile

11
12

premium user who cancelled his or her

13

subscription from Hotfile as a result of the

14

takedown notices reflected on Exhibits A through

15

D of the counterclaim?

16
17
18

A.

I'm not aware of evidence with

regard to a single user.
Q.

Let me broaden that.
Are you aware of any Hotfile

19
20

premium users who cancelled their premium

21

subscription as a result of any takedown notices

22

sent to Hotfile by Warner Brothers?

23

A.

I am not aware of specific

24

evidence with regard to any group of premium

25

users with respect to those takedown notices.
TSG Reporting - Worldwide

[phone]

Highly Confidential

Page 172
1
2

Q.

You're killing me with the

"specifics" here.
Are you aware of a single Hotfile

3
4

premium user who cancelled his or her premium

5

subscription as a result of any takedown notices

6

sent by Warner Brothers?

7
8
9

A.

I am not aware of such specific

evidence.
Q.

Are you aware of a single Hotfile

10

premium user that was involuntarily terminated as

11

a result of a strike assigned from a notice for

12

one of the Exhibit A through D works?
MR. THOMPSON:

13
14

Objection.

Asked

and answered.
THE WITNESS:

15

I am not aware of a

16

specific instance of such.

17

Q.

Are you aware of any Hotfile user,

18

premium or otherwise, that was involuntarily

19

terminated as a result of the takedown notices

20

for the files on Exhibits A through D of the

21

counterclaim?

22

TSG Reporting - Worldwide

[phone]

Highly Confidential

Page 175

5

Q.

I realize that's an assumption of

6

your damages model.

7

try to -- to try to figure out whether there was

8

any evidence of any adverse effect on Hotfile's

9

business reputation or goodwill coming from the

10
11

My question, though, is to

Exhibit A through D takedowns?
A.

I do not have specific evidence

12

from the Exhibit A through D takedowns to

13

reputation or goodwill.

14

Q.

Are you aware that any takedown

15

notice sent by Warner Brothers has had an adverse

16

impact on Hotfile's business reputation or

17

goodwill?

18
19

A.

I am not sure I understand the

distinction --

20

Q.

My first question --

21

A.

-- between the questions.

22

Q.

My first question was related to

23

the A through D works; my second question was

24

related to any Warner takedown notice.

25

So with that clarification, let me
TSG Reporting - Worldwide

[phone]

Highly Confidential

Page 176
1

just ask the question in a whole.
Are you aware of any Warner

2
3

Brothers takedown notice that has resulted in an

4

adverse impact on Hotfile's business reputation

5

or goodwill?

6

A.

I'm not aware of any such specific

8

Q.

Are you aware of any evidence of

9

negative feedback from users -- strike that.
Are you aware of any evidence of

10
11

negative feedback from users based on the

12

takedown notices reflected on Exhibits A through

13

D of the counterclaim?
MR. THOMPSON:

14

Objection.

Overbroad and vague.

15

THE WITNESS:

16

I'm not aware of

17

specific evidence with respect to user.

18

Q.

19

I'm broadening it to all of

Warners' takedown notices.
Are you aware of any negative

20
21

feedback from any Hotfile user related to any

22

takedown notice sent by Warner Brothers?
A.

23
24

I'm not aware of specific evidence

on that.

TSG Reporting - Worldwide

[phone]

Highly Confidential

Page 282

Q.

1

Have you incurred additional --

2

have you billed additional time to this matter in

3

December?

4

A.

I have.

5

Q.

And has your team billed

6

additional time on this matter in December?

7

Q.

9

Do you believe it is a fair

10

statement that as of today if you count your

11

hours approved for your deposition, that

12

Cornerstone Research has accrued more than

13

$20,000 worth of fees in this matter?

14

A.

That's likely to be the case.

15

Q.

So if you look at Schedule 1 of

16

Lynde Exhibit 1, Cornerstone Research has

17

probably incurred more fees twice -- strike

18

that.
Cornerstone Research has incurred

19
20

more fees in this case than the total damage you

21

estimate in Schedule 1?

22

A.

I believe that's correct.

23

Q.

And the total you estimate in

24
25

Schedule 1.1 as well?
A.

Correct.
TSG Reporting - Worldwide

[phone]

Highly Confidential

Page 292

C E R T I F I C A T E

1
2

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

)

3

)

4

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO )
I, LINDA VACCAREZZA, a Certified

5
6

Shorthand Reporter for the State of

7

California, do hereby certify:

8

That MATTHEW LYNDE, the witness

9

whose deposition is hereinbefore set

10

forth, was duly sworn by me and that such

11

deposition is a true record of the

12

testimony given by such witness.
I further certify that I am not

13
14

related to any of the parties to this

15

action by blood or marriage; and that I

16

am in no way interested in the outcome of

17

this matter.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto

18
19

set my hand this 29th day of December

20

2011.

21
22

________________________________

23

LINDA VACCAREZZA, CSR. NO. 10201

24
25

TSG Reporting - Worldwide

[phone]