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 24

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC.,
TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM
COPRORATION, UNIVERSAL CITY
STUDIOS PRODUCTIONS LLP,
COLUMBIA PICTURES INDUSTRIES,
INC., and WARNER BROS.
ENTERTAINMENT INC.,
Plaintiffs,
CASE NO.
11-20427-WILLIAMS-TURNOFF

vs.

HOTFILE CORP., ANTON TITOV,
and DOES 1-10,
Defendants.
_________________________
AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION.
____________________________________________________

**CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER**
VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF STEVE THOMAS KANG
Los Angeles, California
Tuesday, December 20, 2011

Reported by:
MELISSA M. VILLAGRAN
CSR No. 12543, RPR, CLR
JOB No. 179891

STEVE THOMAS KANG
CONFIDENTIAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

12/20/2011

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

3
4
5
6

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

7
8
9

vs.

Plaintiffs,
CASE NO.
11-20427-WILLIAMS-TURNOFF

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

10
11
12

Defendants.
_________________________
AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION.
____________________________________________________

13
14
15
16
17

Videotaped deposition of STEVE THOMAS KANG,

18

taken on behalf of Defendants, at 633 West Fifth

19

Street, 36th Floor, Los Angeles, California,

20

beginning at 9:07 a.m. and ending at 4:42 p.m. on

21

Tuesday, December 20, 2011, before MELISSA M.

22

VILLAGRAN, Certified Shorthand Reporter No. 12543,

23

RPR, CLR.

24
25

2

STEVE THOMAS KANG
CONFIDENTIAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER

1

12/20/2011

APPEARANCES:

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

For Plaintiffs:
JENNER & BLOCK
BY: LUKE C. PLATZER
Attorney at Law
1099 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 900
Washington, DC 20001
[phone]
[e-mail]
For Defendants and Counterclaimant Hotfile, Corp.:
FARELLA BRAUN & MARTEL
BY: JANEL THAMKUL
Attorney at Law
235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
San Francisco, California 94104
[phone]
[e-mail]
Videographer:
Brent Jordan, Sarnoff Court Reporters

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

3

STEVE THOMAS KANG
CONFIDENTIAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER

1

with content owners?

2
3

MR. PLATZER:

Objection to the form;

incomplete hypothetical.

4
04:35

12/20/2011

THE DEPONENT:

I would say that certainly

if -- if -- if Hotfile -- if Hotfile wanted to

6

cooperate with -- with Universal, certainly the

7

effective implementation of content recognition

8

technology to prevent the easy availability of

9
04:35

5

infringing content would be a huge step -- or it

10

would be a huge step in the right direction.

11

But it would certainly have to be

12
13

huge loopholes.

14

looking for is sort of proof in the pudding.

15

know, is this site -- is this site, in effect, on

16

the whole, becoming clean of -- of massive copyright

17

infringement.

18

04:36

effective.

BY MS. THAMKUL:

19
04:36

Q

It couldn't be done in a way that leaves
And ultimately, what we would be

Is there any content recognition technology

20

that is 100 percent guaranteed to catch all

21

unauthorized content on a website?

22
23
24
04:36

You

25

MR. PLATZER:

Objection to the form.

Also

objection that it lacks foundation.
THE DEPONENT:

Not to my knowledge.

I

mean, also, I don't know -- I -- I'm not aware of

208

STEVE THOMAS KANG
CONFIDENTIAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER

12/20/2011

1

any content recognition technology with that kind of

2

a guarantee.

3

BY MS. THAMKUL:

4
04:36

Q

So it's possible that even if Hotfile

5

implemented content recognition technology, that

6

some content files could slip through the cracks?

7
8

hypothetical, lacks foundation.

9
04:37

MR. PLATZER:

THE DEPONENT:

Objection; incomplete

It is possible.

But, you

know, we would be looking for effective

11

implementation.

12

implementation wouldn't be -- doesn't necessarily

13

require 100 percent -- 100 percent effectiveness.

14
04:37

10

BY MS. THAMKUL:

15
16

Q

My -- my broad sense of effective

Does Universal have a percentage of

effectiveness that -- scratch that.

17

Does Universal have a percentage of

18
19
20

infringement to be effective?
MR. PLATZER:

22

objection -- beyond the scope.

23

as a 30(b)(6) representative on behalf of the

24
04:38

yet consider the efforts of that website to reduce

21

04:37

infringement that it would allow on a website and

company.

25

here, so this whole line of questioning, treating

Objection to form.

And also

Mr. Kang is not here

You noticed him in his personal capacity

209

STEVE THOMAS KANG
CONFIDENTIAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER

1

12/20/2011

I, the undersigned, a Certified Shorthand

2

Reporter of the State of California, Registered

3

Professional Reporter, Certified Live Note Reporter,

4

do hereby certify:

5

That the foregoing proceedings were taken

6

before me at the time and place herein set forth;

7

that any witnesses in the foregoing proceedings,

8

prior to testifying, were duly sworn; that a record

9

of the proceedings was made by me using machine

10

shorthand which was thereafter transcribed under my

11

direction; that the foregoing transcript is a true

12

record of the testimony given.

13

Further, that if the foregoing pertains to

14

the original transcript of a deposition in a Federal

15

Case, before completion of the proceedings, review

16

of the transcript [

17

I further certify I am neither financially

18

interested in the action nor a relative or employee

19

of any attorney or party to this action.

20
21

] was [ x ] was not requested.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have this date
subscribed my name.

22
23
24
25

Dated: 12-28-11
______________________________
MELISSA M. VILLAGRAN
CSR No. 12543 RPR, CLR

216