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

Filing 324

NOTICE by Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., Disney Enterprises, Inc., Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Universal City Studios Productions LLLP, Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. re 322 MOTION for Summary Judgment PLAINTIFFS' MOTION AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTS HOTFILE CORP. AND ANTON TITOV (PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION) >PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF FILING PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION OF DECLARATION OF JENNIFER V. YEH IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT< (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Jennifer V. Yeh in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment Against Defendants Hotfile Corp. and Anton Titov (Public Redacted Version), # 2 Exhibit Exs. 1-29, # 3 Exhibit Exs. 30-35, # 4 Exhibit Exs. 36-37, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit 38, # 6 Exhibit Exs. 39-42, # 7 Exhibit Ex. 43, part 1, # 8 Exhibit Ex. 43, part 2, # 9 Exhibit Ex 43, part 3, # 10 Exhibit Ex. 43, part 4, # 11 Exhibit Exs. 44-59, # 12 Exhibit Exs. 60-68, # 13 Exhibit Exs. 69-77, # 14 Exhibit Exs. 78-85, # 15 Exhibit Exs. 86-96, # 16 Exhibit Exs. 97-102, # 17 Exhibit Exs. 103-119)(Stetson, Karen)

Yeh Exhibit 103

2/16/2012

http://www.allyoulike.com/

2/16/2012

http://www.allyoulike.com/

2/16/2012

http://www.allyoulike.com/

2/16/2012

http://www.allyoulike.com/

2/16/2012

http://www.allyoulike.com/

2/16/2012

http://www.allyoulike.com/

Yeh Exhibit 104

REDACTED

Yeh Exhibit 105

Case 2:08-cv-08484-JFW-FMO Document 124

Filed 02/01/10 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:1947

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PRIORITY SEND

CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL
Case No.

CV 08-8484-JFW (FMOx)

Title:

Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc., et al. -v- Free-TV-Video-Online.Info, et al.

Date: February 1, 2010

PRESENT:
HONORABLE JOHN F. WALTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Shannon Reilly
Courtroom Deputy

None Present
Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS:
None
PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS):

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:
None

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS WARNER BROS.
ENTERTAINMENT INC. AND DISNEY ENTERPRISES,
INC.’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
AGAINST DEFENDANTS MOHY MIR AND
SUPERNOVA TUBE, INC. [filed 1/11/2010; Docket No.
108];

On January 11, 2010, Plaintiffs Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. and Disney Enterprises,
Inc. (“Plaintiffs”) filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Against Defendants Mohy Mir and
Supernova Tube, Inc. On January 25, 2010, Defendant Mohy Mir filed his Objections in Partial
Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant Supernova Tube, Inc. did not file an
Opposition. On January 26, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Reply. Pursuant to Rule 78 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 7-15, the Court finds that this matter is appropriate for
decision without oral argument. The hearing calendared for February 8, 2010 is hereby vacated
and the matter taken off calendar. After considering the moving, opposing, and reply papers and
the arguments therein, the Court rules as follows:
Defendant Supernova Tube, Inc. failed to file an Opposition or Statement of Genuine Issues
as required by Local Rule 56-2, and Defendant Mohy Mir’s only argument presented in his
Opposition and Statement of Genuine Issues is that he should not be liable for any contributory
copyright infringement occurring after February 6, 2009. See Local Rule 56-2 (providing that “[a]ny
party who opposes the motion shall serve and file with [its] opposing papers a separate document
containing a concise ‘Statement of Genuine Issues’ setting forth all material facts as to which it is
contended there exists a genuine issue necessary to be litigated”). “In determining any motion for
summary judgment, the Court will assume that the material facts as claimed and adequately
supported by the moving party are admitted to exist without controversy except to the extent that
such material facts are (a) included in the ‘Statement of Genuine Issues’ and (b) controverted by
Page 1 of 2

Initials of Deputy Clerk sr

Case 2:08-cv-08484-JFW-FMO Document 124

Filed 02/01/10 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:1948

declaration or other written evidence filed in opposition to the motion.” Local Rule 56-3; see also
Moreno v. Baca, 2002 WL 434596, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2002) (granting summary judgment
and noting that “Plaintiff has not filed a document containing a ‘Statement of Issues’ setting forth all
material facts as to which it is contended there exists a genuine issue necessary to be litigated, as
required by Local Rule 56-2. Therefore, as directed by Local Rule 56-3, the Court assumes that
the material facts as claimed and adequately supported by the moving party are admitted to exist
without controversy.”).
The Court acknowledges that summary judgment cannot be sustained solely on the ground
that the opposing party failed to file opposition papers. See Cusano v. Klein, 264 F.3d 936, 950
(9th Cir. 2001). Rather, summary judgment is proper where “the pleadings, the discovery and
disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
The moving party has the burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of fact for trial.
See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256 (1986). A party opposing a properly made
and supported motion for summary judgment may not rest upon mere denials but must “set out
specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). In particular, when the nonmoving party bears the burden of proving an element essential to its case, that party must make a
showing sufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact with respect to the existence of that
element or be subject to summary judgment. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322
(1986).
Where the non-moving party fails to offer evidence establishing the existence of an essential
element, “there can be ‘no genuine issue as to any material fact’ since a complete failure of proof
concerning an essential element of the non-moving party’s case necessarily renders all other facts
immaterial.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-323. In such a case, “[t]he moving party is ‘entitled to a
judgment as a matter of law’ because the non-moving party has failed to make a sufficient showing
on an essential element of [its] case with respect to which [it] has the burden of proof.” Id.
After reviewing the evidence submitted by Plaintiffs, the Court finds that the evidence
presented demonstrates that Plaintiffs are entitled to partial summary judgment against
Defendants Mohy Mir and Supernova Tube, Inc. for contributory copyright infringement for acts of
infringement occurring before February 6, 2009. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment Against Defendants Mohy Mir and Supernova Tube, Inc. is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Page 2 of 2

Initials of Deputy Clerk sr

Yeh Exhibit 106

REDACTED

Yeh Exhibit 107

Case 1:11-cv-20427-KMW Document 87-7 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2011 Page 2 of 2

June 23, 2011

http://hotfile.com/news.html

Yeh Exhibit 108

Case 1:11-cv-20427-KMW Document 109-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/03/2011 Page 2 of 3

Case 1:11-cv-20427-KMW Document 109-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/03/2011 Page 3 of 3

Yeh Exhibit 109

REDACTED

Yeh Exhibit 110

Statistical Analysis Of Files Downloaded From Hotfile

Representative sample
of 1,750 files

90.2%

of files are
copyright infringements

.5% - Illegal
4.5% - Unknowable
4.8% - Noninfringing

*Conducted by Dr. Richard Waterman, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania

Appendix B, SUF 10(a)(i)

Yeh Exhibit 111

Hotfile Is No Different From Other Adjudicated Infringers
100%

Percent Infringement

87%

90%

90%

94%

93%-98.8%

90.2%

Damage To Plaintiffs Due To Hotfile’s Failure
To Implement A Repeat Infringer Policy

A&M
Records
v.
Napster
239 F.3d 1004,
1013
(9th Cir. 2001)

MGM Studios
v.
Grokster
545 U.S. 913,
922 & 933
(2005)

Columbia
Pictures
v.
Fung (Isohunt)
WL 6355911, at
*4 & *8 (C.D. Cal.
Dec. 21, 2009)

Disney
Enterprises
v.
Hotfile

Arista Records
v.
Usenet.com
633 F. Supp.
2d 124, 131-32
(S.D.N.Y. 2009)

Arista Records
v.
Lime Group
(Limewire)
784 F Supp.
2d 398, 412
(S.D.N.Y. 2011)
Appendix C, SUF 10(a)(i)

Yeh Exhibit 112

REDACTED

Yeh Exhibit 113

REDACTED

Yeh Exhibit 114

REDACTED

Yeh Exhibit 115

REDACTED

Yeh Exhibit 116

REDACTED

Yeh Exhibit 117

REDACTED

Yeh Exhibit 118

REDACTED

Yeh Exhibit 119

REDACTED