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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?