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

Filing 320

NOTICE by Hotfile Corp. re 318 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment PUBLICLY FILED VERSION (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # 14 Exhibit, # 15 Exhibit, # 16 Exhibit, # 17 Errata, # 18 Exhibit, # 19 Exhibit, # 20 Exhibit, # 21 Exhibit, # 22 Exhibit)(Munn, Janet)

EXHIBIT 17

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.
/

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT HOTFILE CORP.’S
THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(e)(2) and 33, Plaintiffs Disney
Enterprises, Inc., Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Universal City Studios Productions
LLLP, Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., and the Motion
Pictures Association of America (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) hereby provide the following
Responses and Objections to Defendant Hotfile Corporation’s (“Defendant” or “Hotfile”) Third
Set of Interrogatories (the “Third Interrogatories”):

information regarding Plaintiffs’ investigation of infringing files on Hotfile.com. Plaintiffs
further specifically object that this Interrogatory is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The timing of when Plaintiffs or their agents first
became aware of any specific infringing file on the Hotfile website is not relevant to Defendants’
liability for providing access to infringing content on the Hotfile Website, nor is it relevant to
Defendants’ purported affirmative defenses. Plaintiffs further object that the Interrogatory calls
for attorney work product and information protected by the attorney-client privilege to the extent
that it seeks information identifying Plaintiffs’ investigation for purposes of this very action, or
for purposes of other investigations of online infringement.
Plaintiffs further object that the Interrogatory is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and
appears designed to harass. Plaintiffs have identified nearly a million files available through the
Hotfile website that infringe Plaintiffs’ copyrights; it would thus be unduly burdensome to
identify on a file-by-file basis the specific time that Plaintiffs or their agents became aware of
each of those files.
INTERROGATORY NO. 20:
IDENTIFY each file in Schedule A to THE STUDIOS’ response to HOTFILE’s
Interrogatory No. 1 which THE STUDIOS contend Hotfile failed “expeditiously to remove, or
disable access to” after receiving a DMCA takedown notice or SRA request. See 17 U.S.C.
§512(c).
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE AND OBJECTIONS TO INTERROGATORY NO. 20:
Plaintiffs incorporate each General Objection and Specific Objection to Definitions as if
set forth herein. Plaintiffs further specifically object to this Interrogatory as premature, as critical
technical data regarding Hotfile’s responses to takedown notices remains outstanding. Without
waiver of and subject to and incorporating the specific objections as set forth above, Plaintiffs
will supplement this response as appropriate upon the close of discovery.

8

Dated: December 1, 2011

By: s/ Luke C. Platzer
Luke C. Platzer

GRAY-ROBINSON, P.A.
Karen L. Stetson (FL Bar No. 742937)
1221 Brickell Avenue
Suite 1600
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

JENNER & BLOCK LLP
Steven B. Fabrizio (Pro Hac Vice)
Duane C. Pozza (Pro Hac Vice)
Luke C. Platzer (Pro Hac Vice)
1099 New York Ave., N.W.
Suite 900
Washington, DC 20001
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

MOTION PICTURE ASSOCIATION
OF AMERICA, INC.
Karen R. Thorland (Pro Hac Vice)
15301 Ventura Blvd.
Building E
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

9

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.
/
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 1st Day of December, 2011, I served the foregoing Plaintiffs’
Responses and Objections to Defendant Hotfile Corp.’s Third Set of Interrogatories on all
counsel of record on the attached Service List via their email address(es) as set forth on the
Court’s CM/ECF filing system per the parties’ service agreement, as indicated on the attached
Service List.
I further certify that I am admitted pro hac vice in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida and certify that this Certificate of Service was executed on this date
at Washington, D.C.
/s/ Luke C. Platzer
Luke C. Platzer

10

SERVICE LIST
Disney Enterprises, Inc., et al. v. Hotfile Corp. et al.
CASE NO. 11-CIV-20427-WILLIAMS-TURNOFF

FARELLA BRAUN + MARTEL LLP
Anthony P. Schoenberg
[e-mail]
Roderick M. Thompson
[e-mail]
N. Andrew Leibnitz
[e-mail]
Deepak Gupta
[e-mail]
Janel Thamkul
[e-mail]
235 Montgomery Street
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: [phone]

RASCO KLOCK
Janet T. Munn
[e-mail]
283 Catalonia Ave., Suite 200
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorney for Defendants Hotfile Corp. and
Anton Titov
Served via electronic mail by agreement

Attorneys for Defendants Hotfile Corp. and
Anton Titov
Served via electronic mail by agreement
BOSTON LAW GROUP
Valentin Gurvits
825 Beacon Street, Suite 20
Newton Center, MA 02459
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorney for Defendants Hotfile Corp. and
Anton Titov
Served via electronic mail by agreement

11