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

Filing 390

NOTICE by Hotfile Corp., Anton Titov Defendants' Notice of Filing the Publicly Filed Redacted Version of the Declaration of Andrew Leibnitz and Exhibits Thereto, Filed in Support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and Exhibits Thereto (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit 8, # 10 Exhibit 9, # 11 Exhibit 10, # 12 Exhibit 11, # 13 Exhibit 12, # 14 Exhibit 13, # 15 Exhibit 14, # 16 Exhibit 15, # 17 Exhibit 16, # 18 Exhibit 17, # 19 Exhibit 18, # 20 Exhibit 19, # 21 Exhibit 20, # 22 Exhibit 21, # 23 Exhibit 22, # 24 Exhibit 23, # 25 Exhibit 24, # 26 Exhibit 25, # 27 Exhibit 26, # 28 Exhibit 27, # 29 Exhibit 28, # 30 Exhibit 29, # 31 Exhibit 30, # 32 Exhibit 31, # 33 Exhibit 32, # 34 Exhibit 33, # 35 Exhibit 34, # 36 Exhibit 35, # 37 Exhibit 36, # 38 Exhibit 37)(Munn, Janet)

EXHIBIT 23

Zedek, Betsy
12/13/2011
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
Page 1
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,
vs.
HOTFILE CORP., ANTON TITOV,
and DOES 1-10,
Defendants.
________________________
AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION.
________________________________________________________

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF BETSY ZEDEK, ESQUIRE
PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE 30(b)(6)
Los Angeles, California
Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Reported by:
CHERYL R. KAMALSKI
CSR No. 7113
Job No. 179149

Electronically signed by Cheryl Kamalski (201-157-077-2106)

4a2caff4-31b8-48c2-a50b-8729116738f1

Zedek, Betsy
12/13/2011
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
Page 2
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 11-20427-WILLIAMS-TURNOFF

3

7

DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC.,
TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM
CORPORATION, UNIVERSAL CITY
STUDIOS PRODUCTIONS LLLP,
COLUMBIA PICTURES INDUSTRIES,
INC., and WARNER BROS.
ENTERTAINMENT INC.,

8

Plaintiffs,

4
5
6

9
10

vs.
HOTFILE CORP., ANTON TITOV,
and DOES 1-10,

11

13

Defendants.
_________________________
AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION.
______________________________________________________

14

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER

12

15
16

Videotaped Deposition of BETSY ZEDEK, ESQUIRE,

17

pursuant to Federal Rule 30(b)(6), taken on behalf of

18

Defendants and Counterclaimant, at 633 West Fifth

19

Street, Suite 3600, Los Angeles, California, beginning

20

at 9:37 a.m. and ending at 5:27 p.m. on Tuesday,

21

December 13, 2011, before CHERYL R. KAMALSKI, Certified

22

Shorthand Reporter No. 7113.

23
24
25

Electronically signed by Cheryl Kamalski (201-157-077-2106)

4a2caff4-31b8-48c2-a50b-8729116738f1

Zedek, Betsy
12/13/2011
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
Page 3
1

APPEARANCES:

2
3
4
5
6

For Plaintiffs:
JENNER & BLOCK LLP
BY: DUANE POZZA
Attorney at Law
1099 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 900
Washington, D.C. 20001-4412
202.639.6000

7
For Defendants and Counterclaimant:
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

FARELLA BRAUN + MARTEL LLP
BY: JANEL THAMKUL
Attorney at Law
235 Montgomery Street
San Francisco, California 94104
415.954.4400
Also Present:
ELIZABETH VALENTINA
Videographer:
CHRIS JORDAN
SARNOFF, a Veritext Company

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Electronically signed by Cheryl Kamalski (201-157-077-2106)

4a2caff4-31b8-48c2-a50b-8729116738f1

Zedek, Betsy
12/13/2011
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
Page 23
1
2

infringement to Hotfile on Fox's

3

behalf."

4
09:59

commenced sending notifications of

Do you know who that antipiracy vendor, that's

5

referred to in this paragraph, who that is?

6

A

Yes.

7

Q

Who is that?

8

A

DtecNet.

9

Q

Have you produced documents relating to when

10:00 10

DtecNet first identified infringing activity on Hotfile?

11

A

Yes.

12

Q

What were those documents?

13

A

We've produced the notification from DtecNet to

14
10:00 15

us that a response had not been received from Hotfile to
a takedown notice that was sent and we produced a

16

spreadsheet of takedown notices submitted on Fox's

17

behalf by DtecNet to Hotfile, including the dates of all

18

such notices.
Q

19
10:01 20

DtecNet found the infringing materials?
A

21
22

10:01 25

I believe it was March -- around March 19th,

2009.
MS. THAMKUL:

23
24

Do you remember approximately when in March

exhibit.

I'd like to mark this as the next

Just for the record, this document is

Bates-labeled Fox 026175 through Fox 026176.

Electronically signed by Cheryl Kamalski (201-157-077-2106)

4a2caff4-31b8-48c2-a50b-8729116738f1

Zedek, Betsy
12/13/2011
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
Page 46
1

know what it's looking for does that require, to some

2

extent, communication from the rightsholder about what

3

content the rightsholder owns?

4
10:34

MR. POZZA:

5

THE WITNESS:

Objection; ambiguous.
It generally requires the

6

rightsholder to provide metadata identifying the content

7

and describing the business role it wishes to be applied

8

that generally travels attached to the fingerprint

9

itself, so communication may not be required.

10:34 10
11
12

BY MS. THAMKUL:
Q

Did Fox ever provide Hotfile with the content

identification files for Fox's content?

13

A

I don't think so.

14

Q

Did Fox ever communicate to Hotfile that

10:35 15

Hotfile should implement fingerprinting technology?

16

A

Yes, I believe so.

17

Q

When did Fox do this?

18

A

I'm fairly certain that it's happened in the

19
10:35 20

context of this litigation.
Q

Prior to this litigation did Fox ever

21

communicate to Hotfile that Hotfile should implement

22

fingerprinting technology?

23

A

I don't believe that we did.

24

Q

Is Vobile one of the fingerprinting services

10:35 25

that Fox recommends?

Electronically signed by Cheryl Kamalski (201-157-077-2106)

4a2caff4-31b8-48c2-a50b-8729116738f1

Zedek, Betsy
12/13/2011
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
Page 67
1

content file is discovered to the time that the file is

2

taken down, the number of views of that -- that content

3

file.
Does Fox have a gauge for an appropriate amount

4
5

of views that a file could be -- does Fox have a gauge

6

for an appropriate amount of time that a file could be

7

11:31

downloaded before it gets taken down?
MR. POZZA:

8
9

I'm going to object as ambiguous as

to what "viewed" means in this context.
THE WITNESS:

11:31 10

In the context of a site like

11

Hotfile it's our expectation that the site would be

12

filtering for unauthorized uploads of our content, so

13

essentially the answer is zero, that zero views would be

14

acceptable.

11:31 15
16
17

BY MS. THAMKUL:
Q

could -- I'll withdraw the question.
Is there content-filtering technology that is

18
19
11:32 20
21

Is there content protection technology that

100 percent guaranteed to catch all unauthorized
content?
MR. POZZA:

I will object to the extent that

22

the witness is not testifying in a technical capacity

23

and not providing expert testimony on filtering

24

technologies.

11:32 25

THE WITNESS:

Electronically signed by Cheryl Kamalski (201-157-077-2106)

My experience is that filtering

4a2caff4-31b8-48c2-a50b-8729116738f1

Zedek, Betsy
12/13/2011
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
Page 68
1
2

robustness of those technologies is constantly being

3

improved.

4

100 percent effective in all instances, particularly

5

given that, in their implementation, there are a number

6

of policy rules that can be applied by the site

7

implementing the technology.

8

11:32

technologies are mostly effective, but imperfect.

BY MS. THAMKUL:

9
11:32 10

Q

The

But I don't believe any one to be absolutely

So is it possible that some files will slip

through even if a site is implementing content-filtering

11

technology?

12

A

MR. POZZA:

13
14
11:33 15

Yes.
Same objection.

BY MS. THAMKUL:
Q

So if -- in the instance where a file slips

16

through and isn't caught by content-filtering

17

technology, is there an amount of downloads that is

18

appropriate before a file gets taken down?

19
11:33 20
21

MR. POZZA:

Objection; ambiguous, incomplete

hypothetical.
THE WITNESS:

I don't believe there's any

22

number of downloads that's appropriate.

23

gauge by which we generally conceive of these things

24

because, generally, it's information that's not

11:33 25

It's not a

available to us, the rightsholder, on the outside of the

Electronically signed by Cheryl Kamalski (201-157-077-2106)

4a2caff4-31b8-48c2-a50b-8729116738f1

Zedek, Betsy
12/13/2011
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
Page 168
1
2

BY MS. THAMKUL:
Q

Do you have any idea as to how Hotfile would

3

know what fingerprinting technology software was

4

acceptable to Fox?

5

MR. POZZA:

6

03:38

THE WITNESS:

Objection; calls for speculation.
I can't think of all the ways

7

that it would know, but certainly it wouldn't be hard to

8

find out what content tech- -- content-recognition

9

technology providers have Fox fingerprints in their

03:39 10
11
12
13

databases.
BY MS. THAMKUL:
Q

What are some of those content-recognition

services?

14

A

It includes Vobile.

03:39 15

Q

Is Vobile 100 percent guaranteed to flag

16

infringing content?

17

MR. POZZA:

18

ambiguous and an incomplete hypothetical.
THE WITNESS:

19
03:39 20
21
22

Objection to the extent it's

No.

And it's also dependent how

the technology is implemented by the service provider.
BY MS. THAMKUL:
Q

How would the service provider know the method

23

of implementation of its technology that Fox would

24

approve of?

03:39 25

MR. POZZA:

Electronically signed by Cheryl Kamalski (201-157-077-2106)

Objection; it's ambiguous.

4a2caff4-31b8-48c2-a50b-8729116738f1

Zedek, Betsy
12/13/2011
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
Page 222
I, the undersigned, a Certified Shorthand

1
2

Reporter of the State of California, do hereby certify:
That the foregoing proceedings were taken

3
4

before me at the time and place herein set forth; that

5

any witnesses in the foregoing proceedings, prior to

6

testifying, were duly sworn; that a record of the

7

proceedings was made by me using machine shorthand

8

which was thereafter transcribed under my direction;

9

that the foregoing transcript is a true record of the

10

testimony given.
Further, that if the foregoing pertains to

11
12

the original transcript of a deposition in a Federal

13

Case, before completion of the proceedings, review of

14

the transcript [ ] was [ ] was not requested

15

I further certify I am neither financially

16

interested in the action nor a relative or employee

17

of any attorney or any party to this action.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have this date subscribed

18
19

my name.

20
21

Dated: 12/22/2011

22
23
24

_________________________________
CHERYL R. KAMALSKI
CSR No. 7113

25

Electronically signed by Cheryl Kamalski (201-157-077-2106)

4a2caff4-31b8-48c2-a50b-8729116738f1