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

Filing 449

NOTICE by Hotfile Corp., Anton Titov Defendants' Notice of Filing the Publicly Filed Version of the Declaration of Andrew Leibnitz and Exhibits Thereto Filed In Support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Portions of Boyle, Cromarty and Titov Declaration (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)(Munn, Janet)

Exhibit 9

From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

Pozza, Duane [[e-mail]]
Thursday, October 20, 2011 7:11 PM
Schoenberg, Tony (28) x4963
Thompson, Rod (27) x4445; Leibnitz, Andrew (21) x4932; Fabrizio, Steven B; Platzer, Luke C
RE: Hotfile - defendants' production

Tony, I’m following up on a number of issues still outstanding with defendants’ production.  The following is not meant 
to be a comprehensive list of defendants’ outstanding discovery, but these are some specific priority items: 

1. We are still waiting to receive documents and data related to Hotfile’s implementation of Vobile filtering.  
Defendants have agreed to produce all documents related to content filtering, so there should not be any 
objection here to producing these documents. 
2. Defendants still have not produced all records of requests and removals through Hotfile’s SRA accounts.   
Defendants should be able to produce these merely by exporting data from a database, so there should be no 
further delay in producing them.   
3. Defendants have not produce chat logs, though there is no question they need to be searched and produced.   
I’ve already pointed to one example of Andrei Ianokov inviting private chats with Affiliates regarding Hotfile, and 
it’s clear that Hotfile personnel have communicated in this way.  If defendants claim that they somehow do not 
have such logs, let us know expeditiously what platforms on which they communicated (e.g., on ICQ or on 
specific forums such as Linkbucks) so we can seek further discovery of any missing communications. 
4. As a related point, it has now been two months since you agreed to supplement the response to Interrogatory 
No. 13(a).  We will move to compel on this if we cannot get a commitment to produce this response to a date 
certain.  Defendants also should produce any public posts by Hotfile personnel that are otherwise responsive to 
our requests.   
5. It appears that defendants still have not produced some responsive data.  The production of hash data earlier 
this week confirms that Hotfile stores unique identifiers of content files that did not include in its initial 
production.  Are there others?  For example, Hotfile almost certainly stores unique identifiers in connection with 
Vobile‐based filtering.  Additionally, we’ve noted that Hotfile appears to store a “lastdl” (or a user’s last 
download) – a fact which is evident based on the documents we’ve received and observation of Hotfile’s cookies 
operate.  Yet Hotfile has never produced this data, though it is plainly responsive to Requests Nos. 1 and 2.  
What is the basis for withholding it?  More broadly, please confirm whether there are any other data fields of 
which defendants are withholding production that are responsive to Requests 1, 2, and 3.  We did not request 
production of sufficient data about content files, users, and Affiliates – we requested all responsive data.  (To 
the extent that you believe this to be burdensome to investigate, I would note that we requested portions of 
database schemas so we could identify this information ourselves, but defendants refused.)    
6. Regarding the referrer URL data, on our call last week you identified the limited referrer URL data that’s included
in the data production we have received.  Thanks for that.  However, we still do expect that there are additional 
documents showing referrer URLs for downloading users.  For example, you’ve confirmed that Hotfile receives 
the referrer URL information when users arrive to at Hotfile – as we discussed, it temporarily places that 
information in a cookie – so it may be stored elsewhere in the data in fields on which we are not aware.  Can you 
confirm whether there is any other data field recording referrer URLs?  Further, this data may also be available 
in other locations in defendants’ possession, custody, or control – for example, in data hosted by Google 
Analytics.  Can you confirm whether defendants have access to such data and whether all Google Analytics 
reports regarding referrer URLs have been produced?  (This data is responsive to Requests Nos. 3 and 13, among 
others.)   

Please let me know the responses on the above issues, or a good time to meet and confer. 

Regards, 
Duane 
1

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 6:38 PM
To: Pozza, Duane
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Fabrizio, Steven B; Platzer, Luke C
Subject: RE: Hotfile - sufficiency of "status" data production

Duane – I’m working on responding to your inquiries, so it’s not clear to me what purpose a meet and confer phone call 
will serve.  In any event, I’m tied up tomorrow.  If you want to talk on Wednesday, I can be available. 

Regards, 
Tony   

Anthony P. Schoenberg
Attorney at Law
______________________________

Farella Braun + Martel LLP
RUSS BUILDING
235 MONTGOMERY STREET
SAN FRANCISCO / CA 94104
______________________________
T 415.954.4400
D 415.954.4963
F 415.954.4480

www.fbm.com

From: Pozza, Duane [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 2:48 PM
To: Schoenberg, Tony (28) x4963
Cc: Thompson, Rod (27) x4445; Leibnitz, Andrew (21) x4932; Fabrizio, Steven B; Platzer, Luke C
Subject: RE: Hotfile - sufficiency of "status" data production

Tony, it’s now been over two weeks since I raised a number of questions regarding the defendants’ Court‐ordered data 
production, which appears to be incomplete.  I appreciate that you have been checking with your client but we still have 
no indication when we will get a response to the questions, much less a supplemental production.  In light of this delay, 
we should meet and confer to determine where we stand on these issues.  I am available from  2pm to 5pm Eastern 
tomorrow to discuss.  Let me know what works for you. 

Thanks, 
Duane 

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 7:59 PM
To: Pozza, Duane
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Fabrizio, Steven B; Platzer, Luke C
Subject: RE: Hotfile - sufficiency of "status" data production

Duane – I’m following up on your questions and will get back to you when I have additional information.  Titov’s emails 
went out today.  It’s my understanding that 
emails were produced earlier this week.  I will have to get back to 
you about Manov’s emails. 

2

Regards, 
Tony 

Anthony P. Schoenberg
Attorney at Law
______________________________

Farella Braun + Martel LLP
RUSS BUILDING
235 MONTGOMERY STREET
SAN FRANCISCO / CA 94104
______________________________
T 415.954.4400
D 415.954.4963
F 415.954.4480

www.fbm.com

From: Pozza, Duane [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 1:55 PM
To: Schoenberg, Tony (28) x4963
Cc: Thompson, Rod (27) x4445; Leibnitz, Andrew (21) x4932; Fabrizio, Steven B; Platzer, Luke C
Subject: RE: Hotfile - sufficiency of "status" data production

Tony, 
We still have not heard back from you on the data questions below.  Additionally, as you know, we are still waiting for 
custodial productions at least from Titov, 
, and Manov.  Can you confirm when you expect those to be 

provided?  And in particular, now that it has just been disclosed that Mr. Manov apparently no longer works for 
 can you confirm that his email and any computer used for work have been searched for responsive documents? 

Regards, 
Duane  

From: Pozza, Duane
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 3:36 PM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Fabrizio, Steven B; Platzer, Luke C
Subject: FW: Hotfile - sufficiency of "status" data production

Tony, 
I’m following up on my questions below about Hotfile’s data production (you had requested that we postpone this 
discussion until after Monday’s production deadline).  As I noted, we still do not appear to have received two specific 
data fields: (a) the hash value of any file, including any blocked file, and (b) the time of blocking or removal of any file.  
We also need confirmation that the pre‐Feb. 28 log data will be produced.   As for the “referrer URLs,” we believe that 
Hotfile should have at least some data on this, as its referral program for site owners pays site owners based on traffic 
coming from their website (see http://hotfile.com/affiliate.html); Hotfile therefore must receive information about the 
URL from which downloading users arrive on the site in order to calculate Affiliate payments.  Please confirm whether 
this information is received and/or preserved.   

Finally, we are still waiting on a supplemental response to Interrogatory No. 13(a).  If the delay is attributable to just 
obtaining a verification, we would appreciate the information being provided informally, so discovery can move 
forward.   

3

Regards,  
Duane 

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 8:43 PM
To: Pozza, Duane; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; Fabrizio, Steven B; Platzer, Luke C
Subject: RE: Hotfile - sufficiency of "status" data production

Duane,
We're still looking into the log file question. As to your other question, Hotfile does not collect "referrer URLs"
as you have speculated, which is why that data point was not produced. We will follow up on your new
questions.
Regards,
Tony
-----Original Message----From: Pozza, Duane [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 4:56 PM
To: Schoenberg, Tony (28) x4963; Leibnitz, Andrew (21) x4932
Cc: Thompson, Rod (27) x4445; Fabrizio, Steven B; Platzer, Luke C
Subject: RE: Hotfile - sufficiency of "status" data production

Tony, I’m following up on the questions about the remaining log data and the referrer URL – what additional 
information do you have on these?  As we continue to review the data, we also appear to be missing two other 
data fields: (a) the hash value of any file, including any blocked file, and (b) the time of blocking or removal of 
any file.  To the extent that Hotfile references unique hash values – which it claims to do – those values are 
clearly responsive to Request 1 (see Instruction 17(b)) and Request 23 (seeking documents about blocking using 
hashes).  As for the time of blocking or removal, we agreed that documents showing that time would be 
provided in response to Request 5(b).  Please confirm this data will also be produced. 

Thanks, 
Duane 

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2011 2:31 PM
To: Pozza, Duane; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; Fabrizio, Steven B; Platzer, Luke C
Subject: RE: Hotfile - sufficiency of "status" data production

Duane -- I do not; we will look into it.
-----Original Message----From: Pozza, Duane [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 5:36 PM
To: Schoenberg, Tony (28) x4963; Leibnitz, Andrew (21) x4932
Cc: Thompson, Rod (27) x4445; Fabrizio, Steven B; Platzer, Luke C
Subject: RE: Hotfile - sufficiency of "status" data production

4

Tony, aside from the referrer URL log question (which I realize may require some follow‐up to 
investigate), do you have more information on the date range of the log files, given that defendants 
have previously provided us excerpts of log files from Feb. 18?  Please let us know.  Thanks – 

Duane 

From: Pozza, Duane
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 10:21 AM
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; Fabrizio, Steven B; Platzer, Luke C
Subject: RE: Hotfile - sufficiency of "status" data production

Tony, thanks for this information on the “status” data. 

On further review, we also appear to be missing some user log data.  It appears that the first user 
download logs that we have are from late on February 28.  However, during our meet and confer on the 
evidence preservation motion, Andy provided examples of logs as far back as February 18.  Those should 
also be provided under the Court’s order.  What is the status of the pre‐Feb. 28 logs? 

Additionally, we would expect that Hotfile collects “referrer URLs” for users who come to Hotfile and 
download content, given that Hotfile compensates Affiliates in part based on certain traffic from the 
Affiliate’s registered URLs.  I understand that this “referrer URL” may not be contained in the same 
specific log entry as the actual download log, but it is still information that Hotfile receives about every 
downloading user.  That data is responsive to Request No. 3 as it is used to calculate payments to 
Affiliates.  Please check with your client as to whether and where this data is separately maintained and 
let us know that it will be provided.  If there is any question about the technical form in which this 
referrer data would be received and stored, I am happy to discuss. 

Thanks, 
Duane 

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 1:33 PM
To: Pozza, Duane; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; Fabrizio, Steven B; Platzer, Luke C

5

Duane Pozza
Jenner & Block LLP
1099 New York Avenue, N.W.
Suite 900
Washington, DC 20001-4412
Tel [phone]
Fax [phone]
[e-mail]
www.jenner.com

CONFIDENTIALITY WARNING: This email may contain privileged or confidential information and is for the sole use of the
intended recipient(s). Any unauthorized use or disclosure of this communication is prohibited. If you believe that you have
received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your system.

6

7