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 14
Page 204
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 11-20427-WILLIAMS
DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC.,
TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM
CORPORATION, UNIVERSAL CITY
STUDIOS PRODUCTIONS LLLP,
COLUMBIA PICTURES
INDUSTRIES, INC., and
WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT
INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
HOTFILE CORP., ANTON TITOV
and DOES 1-10,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Continued Deposition of JAMES BOYLE
Volume II
(Taken by the Plaintiffs)
Raleigh, North Carolina
January 19, 2012
Reported by:
Marisa Munoz-Vourakis RMR, CRR and Notary Public
TSG Job # 45588
TSG Reporting - Worldwide
877-702-9580
Page 205
1
APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL:
2
For the Plaintiffs:
3
DUANE POZZA, ESQ.
4
Jenner & Block
5
1099 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 900
6
Washington, DC 20001
7
8
9
10
For the Defendants:
11
DEEPAK GUPTA, ESQ.
12
Farella Braun & Martel
13
Russ Building
14
235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
15
San Francisco, CA 94104
16
17
18
o0o
19
20
Continued Deposition of JAMES BOYLE,
21
taken by the Plaintiffs, at Office Suites Plus, 3737
22
Glenwood Avenue, Suite 100, Raleigh, North Carolina, on
23
the 19th day of January, 2012 at 9:38 a.m., before
24
Marisa Munoz-Vourakis, Registered Merit Reporter,
25
Certified Realtime Reporter and Notary Public.
TSG Reporting - Worldwide
877-702-9580
Page 447
1
have problems with extrapolating the study, but this,
2
for the purposes of argument, I took their
3
classifications and accepted them.
4
Q.
Well, no, these numbers themselves you're
5
taking a different variable, the paid for variable,
6
right?
They didn't analyze that?
7
A.
That is correct.
8
Q.
And you're saying that you can take that
9
variable, calculate this conversion rate, which is
10
based on this other variable daily download total that
11
they did not consider?
12
A.
I believe they did consider.
13
Q.
Daily download total?
14
A.
Well, they looked at daily downloads,
15
excuse me.
16
MR. GUPTA:
Objection, this line of
17
questioning is obviously somewhat confusing
18
and complicated.
19
20
BY MR. POZZA:
Q.
I'm trying to figure out if these
21
conversion rates that you claim for different
22
categories of infringing and noninfringing content, are
23
you claiming that those conversion rates would
24
extrapolate to the entire population of files or
25
downloads on Hotfile?
TSG Reporting - Worldwide
877-702-9580
Page 448
1
2
3
MR. GUPTA:
Objection, to the extent
it seeks a statistical analysis.
A.
What I'm claiming is that if Dr. Waterman
4
and Mr. Zebrak were correct about, first of all, the
5
statistical representativeness of their study, about
6
which I raise questions, and also the accuracy of it,
7
about which I raise questions, but if we assume that
8
for the sake of argument they are claiming that it
9
provides a generalizable representative picture of
10
Hotfile, if they take their assumption, the assumption
11
they make in their report, then I would expect that the
12
paid for could be extrapolated to the rest of Hotfile.
13
14
15
Q.
Would it be extrapolated in the way that
you have done here?
A.
I think a court might extrapolate it in any
16
number of ways.
17
and they are presenting estoppel from which conclusions
18
can be extrapolated, then their sample and their
19
classifications with this one extra piece of
20
information, namely, the sample paid for is a
21
percentage of daily download totals.
22
23
24
25
Q.
I think if their argument is correct,
Is that based on your understanding of the
statistical methods that Dr. Waterman employed?
A.
It's based on my understanding that
Dr. Waterman claims that his study is a statistically
TSG Reporting - Worldwide
877-702-9580
Page 462
1
2
3
4
5
SIGNATURE PAGE
you.
(Whereupon the deposition was
concluded at 5:43 p.m.)
(Signature reserved.)
6
7
___________________________
8
JAMES BOYLE
9
10
11
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ______
12
day of_____________________________, 2012
13
14
15
16
___________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC
17
18
My Commission expires:__________________________
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
TSG Reporting - Worldwide
877-702-9580
Page 464
1
2
C E R T I F I C A T E
I, Marisa Munoz-Vourakis, RMR, CRR and Notary Public,
3
the officer before whom the foregoing proceeding was
4
conducted, do hereby certify that the witness(es) whose
5
testimony appears in the foregoing proceeding were duly
6
sworn by me; that the testimony of said witness(es) were
7
taken by me to the best of my ability and thereafter
8
transcribed under my supervision; and that the foregoing
9
pages, inclusive, constitute a true and accurate
10
11
transcription of the testimony of the witness(es).
I do further certify that I am neither counsel for,
12
related to, nor employed by any of the parties to this
13
action in which this proceeding was conducted, and
14
further, that I am not a relative or employee of any
15
attorney or counsel employed by the parties thereof, nor
16
financially or otherwise interested in the outcome of the
17
action.
18
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name
19
this 23rd of January, 2012.
20
21
22
23
___________________________
MARISA MUNOZ-VOURAKIS
Notary #20032900127
24
25
TSG Reporting - Worldwide
877-702-9580
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?