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 8
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Pozza, Duane [DPozza@jenner.com]
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 6:07 PM
Leibnitz, Andrew (21) x4932
Platzer, Luke C; Fabrizio, Steven B; Schoenberg, Tony (28) x4963; Thompson, Rod (27)
x4445; Gupta, Deepak (22) x4419; jmunn@rascoklock.com
RE: Hotfile -- Discovery M&C and Warner Bros. documents
Andy,
If you want to take the position that the meet‐and‐confer on these requests is now concluded, that is fine – we now
consider it concluded. The remaining questions I had were underlined in my email below. In a few places, I stated my
understanding of what you are producing, and asked you to let me know if my understanding is not accurate (Requests
5(b) & (m), 5(i)). Given that you have now reviewed my email and your response from last night does not state
otherwise, I take it that my understanding in each of those cases is accurate. In a few other places, I have asked whether
defendants will produce certain documents (Requests 19, 38, and Interrogatory 8). I will take it from your email that,
unless I hear otherwise from you, defendants will not do so. If you receive “client confirmation” that you will produce
such documents, then let me know.
In any event, we should be clear that once a motion to compel is timely to file, the plaintiffs will not delay filing for
further clarification from defendants on any of these points. My email is relatively detailed on the parties’ positions so
that there are no surprises if and when we claim that you have not agreed to produce certain documents (if we need to
move to compel), or that you have agreed to produce documents (if we don’t move, based on our understanding of
what you are producing). In many cases, Hotfile has changed its position from its written responses. If there are any
misunderstandings to clear up, now is the time to do it – not only because plaintiffs may need to move to compel on
some of these requests, but because your document production and our discovery is ongoing.
Aside from your previous commitment to provide a supplemental response to Interrogatory No. 1 last week, given that
the Interrogatory response will identify additional potential witnesses, it should be provided as soon as possible. When
will it be provided?
Thanks,
Duane
Duane Pozza
Jenner & Block LLP
1099 New York Avenue, N.W.
Suite 900
Washington, DC 20001-4412
Tel (202) 639-6027
Fax (202) 661-4962
DPozza@jenner.com
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.
1
From: ALeibnitz@fbm.com [mailto:ALeibnitz@fbm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 12:14 AM
To: Pozza, Duane
Cc: Platzer, Luke C; Fabrizio, Steven B; TSchoenberg@fbm.com; RThompson@fbm.com; DGupta@fbm.com;
jmunn@rascoklock.com
Subject: RE: Hotfile -- Discovery M&C and Warner Bros. documents
Duane:
Despite your message, I remain unclear on exactly what you wish to clarify by further meeting-and-conferring. As with
Hotfile, Plaintiffs can bring no motion to compel on extended time now. If the Court grants our motion to dismiss, time
spent now on Plaintiffs' demand for alternate spellings of witnesses' surnames is not time well spent (even assuming that
Hotfile's present answer is insufficient, which is not the case). In any event, we will supplement Hotfile's response to
Interrogatory No. 1 to provide additional potential witnesses. As we told you last week, our client was unavailable last
week.
Regarding Warner documents, is there a particular type of document giving you concern? As you know, we have been
producing thousands of e-mails from Hotfile's e-mail boxes, among other records. Of course, Hotfile's production of
Warner-related documents cannot relieve Warner of the obligation to prepare its own witness from its own records and
those of its agents. Has Warner completed its production of all documents requested by Hotfile and relating to the
subjects addressed in the deposition topics?
As you know, we have met-and-conferred for dozens of hours. Nonetheless, I attempted to review your lengthy e-mail
below for areas where there could possibly be any remaining confusion. Our objections and limitations on responses are
clearly identified; when we state that we will produce documents "sufficient" to show something, they will be sufficient;
Hotfile does not propose to create documents for the purposes of responding to discovery; and our outstanding proposals
remain subject to client confirmation. What further questions remain?
Feel free to call me if you have additional concerns.
Regards,
ANDY
N. Andrew Leibnitz
Attorney at Law
______________________________
Farella Braun + Martel LLP
RUSS BUILDING
235 MONTGOMERY STREET
SAN FRANCISCO / CA 94104
______________________________
T 415.954.4400
D 415.954.4932
F 415.954.4480
www.fbm.com
-----Original Message----From: Pozza, Duane [mailto:DPozza@jenner.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 8:20 AM
To: Leibnitz, Andrew (21) x4932
Cc: Platzer, Luke C; Fabrizio, Steven B; Schoenberg, Tony (28) x4963; Thompson, Rod (27) x4445; Gupta,
2
Deepak (22) x4419
Subject: RE: Hotfile -- Discovery M&C and Warner Bros. documents
Andy, the Court has not stayed discovery, as you’ve acknowledged. The parties are obligated to meet in good
faith to attempt to resolve discovery disputes, including by clarifying defendants’ responses and attempting to
reach compromises. That is true regardless of whether, or when, we file a motion to compel. My email seeks
clarification on what defendants intend to produce in discovery that is ongoing, and defendants cannot shut
down the meet and confer process based on the Court’s order. If defendants will not participate in the meet
and confer process, we will notify the Court on Wednesday that defendants are abusing the Court’s order to
refuse even to discuss resolving discovery disputes.
As just one example of an open question from my email below, you indicated in a meet‐and‐confer two weeks
ago that defendants would produce a supplemental response to Interrogatory No. 1 sometime last week. We
have not received it. When will this be produced?
Also, you email does not address my question about complete production of Warner Bros. documents – please
let me know when defendants expect to complete production of those.
Thanks,
Duane
From: ALeibnitz@fbm.com [mailto:ALeibnitz@fbm.com]
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 7:26 PM
To: Pozza, Duane
Cc: Platzer, Luke C; Fabrizio, Steven B; TSchoenberg@fbm.com; RThompson@fbm.com; DGupta@fbm.com
Subject: RE: Hotfile -- Discovery M&C and Warner Bros. documents
Duane:
Given that the Court has made our cross motions to compel untimely for now, I'm unclear on what there is to
confer about at the present moment. While I appreciate that you think it inevitable that the Court will deny
Hotfile's motion to dismiss, we respectfully disagree. If your side prevails on the motion, we can pick this up again
then.
Regards,
ANDY
-----Original Message----From: Pozza, Duane [mailto:DPozza@jenner.com]
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 3:07 PM
To: Leibnitz, Andrew (21) x4932
Cc: Platzer, Luke C; Fabrizio, Steven B; Schoenberg, Tony (28) x4963; Thompson, Rod (27) x4445;
Gupta, Deepak (22) x4419
Subject: RE: Hotfile -- Discovery M&C and Warner Bros. documents
Andy, I am following up again on the questions raised in my email below – please let me know your
responses so we can move forward on the remaining discovery. Additionally, with the Warner Bros.
deposition approaching, we need to be clear that all documents related to Warner Bros. are produced
with sufficient time for us to review prior to the deposition, as we had discussed when scheduling the
early deposition. We expect that defendants’ production would include any communications with
Warner Bros. and all special rightsholder account records you believe relate to Warner Bros., as well as
any other documents related to the topics in your deposition notice. We request that you prioritize
production of such documents and provide them by the middle of next week. Please confirm your
schedule for producing them.
3
Thanks, and have a good weekend,
Duane
From: Pozza, Duane
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 8:08 PM
To: 'ALeibnitz@fbm.com'
Cc: Platzer, Luke C; Fabrizio, Steven B; TSchoenberg@fbm.com; RThompson@fbm.com;
DGupta@fbm.com
Subject: RE: Hotfile -- Discovery M&C
Andy, when do you expect to have a response to the questions remaining from our last meet‐and‐confer
on plaintiffs’ discovery requests, which I sent on Monday (copied below)? On our call last Thursday, you
proposed attempting to resolve these follow‐up issues by email rather than have another call. I am
open to that, but we need an obtain an email response to my questions below in order to move
forward. Please let me know what you can before the holiday weekend.
Also, when can we expect the next production of responsive documents, and will it include user
communications that have not yet been produced and more recent Hotfile termination records that we
have requested? You’ve proposed bringing a summary judgment motion in just over two weeks, yet we
still have not received these and other documents directly relevant to opposing your motion.
Thanks,
Duane
From: ALeibnitz@fbm.com [mailto:ALeibnitz@fbm.com]
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 2:00 PM
To: Pozza, Duane
Cc: Platzer, Luke C; Fabrizio, Steven B; TSchoenberg@fbm.com; RThompson@fbm.com;
DGupta@fbm.com
Subject: RE: Hotfile -- Discovery M&C
Duane:
As we just discussed by phone, the Court's Order of this morning makes further motion(s) to compel by
Plaintiffs untimely -- at least until the case passes the pleading stage. Given the immediacy of the
deadline set by your e-mail below and the deadline of tomorrow for the Lemuria motion, please let us
know Plaintiffs' position as soon as possible.
Regards,
ANDY
-----Original Message----From: Pozza, Duane [mailto:DPozza@jenner.com]
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 10:41 AM
To: Leibnitz, Andrew (21) x4932
Cc: Platzer, Luke C; Fabrizio, Steven B; Schoenberg, Tony (28) x4963; Thompson, Rod (27)
x4445; Gupta, Deepak (22) x4419
Subject: RE: Hotfile -- Discovery M&C
Andy, below I have annotated my email setting out the agenda for the rest of the meet and
confer on plaintiffs’ requests and interrogatories with notes reflecting our most recent
discussions (these are indicated in bold and with “6/27”). Please let me know as soon as
possible if my understanding of any of defendants’ positions below is incorrect. Also, I have
4
underlined points where we need additional follow‐up. Please let me know your response as
soon as you can, and no later than end of day tomorrow.
Thanks,
Duane
Interrogatory No. 1: We continue to ask for specific citations to any privacy law that would
prevent disclosure of contact information for these individuals, and for identification of the
country in which each of these individuals is located. As I have explained, there is no basis for
withholding their contact information.
We still need contact information for Kolev,
and Stallings, the latter of whom
may not even be in Bulgaria. We also need any alternative spellings of names for those
individuals whose names are originally in Cyrillic.
Further, as we discussed, defendants’ response is incomplete in that it does not identify entities
or individuals that have performed work on behalf of the Hotfile Website or provided any
service to the Hotfile Website. While we continue to believe that this request is sufficiently
narrow, we can agree to exclude any entities or individuals providing or performing any
ministerial work, e.g., secretarial work that does not involve any knowledge of the substantive
operation of Hotfile. We still expect a full response as to individuals or entities performing or
providing any other services, including but not limited to billing, receiving payments, making
payments, advertising, technical support, maintenance, operational management, user or
Affiliate communications, or ISP services. The response must also include individuals and
entities that performed or provided such services in the past (as it is not clear that your current
response does so). Finally, you have agreed to provide actual start dates for those individuals
employed “since the beginning of Hotfile.”
I have narrowed this request above to address your concern that it is overbroad as to
identifying individuals or entities that are providing services for or performing work on behalf of
the Hotfile Website. We need confirmation that defendants will respond to the narrowed
request, including a full response for each of the services identified. We also need confirmation
that you will include entities performing services (e.g., Hotfile, Ltd. and Lemuria), that you will
include past employees and contractors, and that you will include individuals performing work
on behalf of any Hotfile Entity.
6/27: Defendants will provide a supplemental response this week. That will include
individuals that performed work for or on behalf of Hotfile in the past, and it will include
actual start dates. That will also include identification of additional entities and/or individuals
that performed work on behalf of or provided any services to the Hotfile Website. I have
asked whether you still intend to object to identifying any subset of such individuals on
grounds that this Interrogatory is overbroad, but defendants have taken the position that we
should see what is being provided in the supplemental response. We need to know your
objections and limitations on any response by no later than Tuesday as it is not clear what
information is being provided. You have also indicated that you will provide contact
information for Mr. Stallings or indicate that you represent him. You have stated that you will
not provide additional spellings for the individuals listed in the response.
Request No. 5(a): While you have objected to producing takedowns sent under foreign laws, in
practice you are producing them by producing the “abuse” email box. We still need to be clear
that you are producing records of takedowns received via special rightsholder accounts. This
information is directly relevant to, among other issues, whether Hotfile implemented a repeat
infringer policy under the DMCA.
5
We need confirmation that you are producing documents takedowns received via
special rightsholder accounts, including very recent takedowns. Additionally, we need
confirmation that the other takedowns produced will be effectively current.
6/27: You have agreed to produce takedowns received via special rightsholder accounts. You
have also agreed to timely supplement with more recent takedown information.
Request No. 5(b) & 5(m): It is still not clear what documents you intend to produce that would
be “sufficient” to show all removal, deletion, or disabling of material. Email communications
about removing materials, for example, would not be sufficient here, as they do not actually
prove that the material was removed. We continue to believe that a complete response is
required, particularly in the absence of specific information as to what documents are being
provided.
We object to documents only sufficient to show removal of content, and have
requested more information about what you intend to provide. In particular, the documents we
have requested and that should be produced must show the time at which content was
removed for all periods of time for which Hotfile has received notices, in order to determine if
Hotfile acted expeditiously in response to takedown notices.
6/27: Defendants have agreed that the information produced will show the time of
takedown. You have provided a non‐exhaustive list of documents that will be produced here,
including special rightsholder account takedowns, notices, and server log data showing
takedowns. However, you have not agreed to produce documents sufficient to show removal
of content for reasons other than a copyright takedown, and we are at an impasse on that
issue. In addition to what we discussed specifically on our callsI also note that your response
here does not include communications about removal of material, but my understanding is
that such communications will be produced as part of your general production of
communications about Hotfile and agreement to produce documents in response to Requests
Nos. 11, 23, and 24. But just to be clear on that, please let me know if that is not accurate,
and you intend to withhold any communications related to removal of content on Hotfile.
Request No. 5(c): You have indicated that Hotfile’s entire “support” mailbox will be produced.
We need to confirm that both sent and received emails from this mailbox will be included in the
production. Further, we need to discuss and understand what other email addresses that
Hotfile uses to communicate with users in order to determine whether all responsive
documents are being produced (a topic we discussed in connection with Request No. 6 as well).
I note that, in addition to email addresses and contact forms available on the Hotfile website,
Hotfile has apparently used the email address hotfile.mailbox@gmail.com, and responsive
emails from that and other accounts should be produced.
Please be ready to discuss all mailboxes that Hotfile intends to search or produce in
their entirety so we can determine if all responsive documents are being produced. We also
need confirmation that sent emails will be produced.
6/27: Defendants continue to refuse to identify all the mailboxes that that are being
searched. You have indicated that custodians will be disclosed, that personal email accounts
will be searched for responsive documents, and that any responsive sent emails that have
been preserved will be produced. You have also indicated that all communications with
Hotfile users will be produced.
Request No. 5(d): You have indicated that we are obtaining all responsive documents, as
indicated in response to Request No. 18.
6
Request No. 5(e) and 5(f): You have indicated that you will produce communications related to
Hotfile, and that you believe these communications will encompass documents responsive to
these requests. However, I note that these requests call for documents in addition to emails.
Hotfile may have relevant documents that are not communications, such as reports about the
types of content files, analyses of what content is popular on Hotfile, and analyses what content
is most likely to be removed or shared, in response to Request 5(e). It may also have internal
analyses of user locations in response to Request 5(f). These kinds of documents should also be
produced.
We need confirmation that documents (including those specified above), and not just
emails are being produced.
6/27: In general, in response to this and other requests where you have indicated
communications will be produced, you will also produce responsive Word, PDF, Excel,
Powerpoint, and similar documents to the extent that they exist. You have indicated that
Hotfile primarily does business through email, not through standalone documents, and you
expect very few of those kinds of documents to be produced. However, to be clear, you have
indicated that you have asked for all Hotfile‐related documents from defendants.
Request No. 5(g): You have explained that you are not refusing to produce internal emails about
reasons that users are attracted to the Hotfile Website. I note here again that the request calls
for responsive documents and not just communications. Further, we should be clear that the
category of documents to be produced includes documents analyzing, for example, the use of
the Hotfile website for storage vs. distribution, the draw for uploaders, the draw for
downloaders, and content that attracts users to subscribe.
We need confirmation that documents and not just emails are being produced, and that
they will encompass the topics specified above.
6/27: The comments on 5(e) and (f) apply here.
Request No. 5(h): Your response here is still limited to “discussions” of other document hosting
or “locker” websites. Again, there may be responsive documents here that are not
communications but that should be produced (even in the category of a “discussion”), including
analysis of services like Rapidshare that operate as direct competitors of Hotfile, agreements
with such sites, and communications with the operators of such sites.
We need confirmation that documents and not just emails are being produced, and that
they will encompass the topics specified above. To be even more specific, I also note
that this request encompasses discussions, communications, and analyses regarding the
rewards programs of other document hosting sites, including analyses of Rapidshare’s
termination of its rewards program and analyses of services like filesonic.com.
6/27: The comments on 5(e) and (f) apply here. You specifically confirmed that discussions
about any other document hosting or “locker” sites would be produced.
Request No. 5(i): As we have discussed, this request extends to all documents related to
investors and potential investors. We have discussed that this request encompasses documents
such as presentations to potential investors, but it is not limited to such documents. Any
communications with or documents about investors would be potentially relevant to Hotfile’s
business model and operations, and therefore should be produced.
We need confirmation of what, if any, documents, defendants will produce here.
6/27: You have confirmed that communications with the three investors will be produced as
part of producing communications from custodians. However, defendants refuse to commit
7
to producing any documents about or communications with potential investors. You have
noted that documents about Hotfile’s business will generally be produced, but based on
defendants’ continued objection to this category, it appears that some documents or
communications about potential investors are being withheld. Please let me know if this is
not the case. I have explained that these kinds of documents are highly probative of
defendants’ business model and we need to move forward to obtain them.
Request No. 5(j) and 9: You have indicated that defendants will produce communications with
and about Affiliates. However, to be clear, any documents about the Affiliate program – for
example, analyses of the Rewards program, retention of Affiliates, types of websites registered
as Affiliates and sending traffic to Hotfile – would also be responsive and should be produced.
We need confirmation that documents (including those specified above), and not just
emails are being produced.
6/27: You have agreed to produce communications about the Affiliate program. As for
documents, the comments on 5(e) and (f) apply here.
Request No. 5(k): You have agreed to produce communications with and about resellers. As
with the requests above, we need to confirm that documents about the Reseller program will be
produced as well.
We need confirmation that documents and not just emails are being produced
6/27: As for documents, the comments on 5(e) and (f) apply here.
Request No. 5(l): My understanding is that a complete response will be provided in response to
Request No. 21, which should encompass the documents called for by this request.
Please confirm this understanding. Additionally, the information you have provided for
terminated users to date only extends to May 5, 2011, but we need a supplementation of data
for the last month.
6/27: You have confirmed, and also agreed to timely supplement this response.
Request No. 5(n): You have agreed to produce any document mentioning copyrighted content,
as well as Hotfile’s abuse mailbox. Again, the response here cannot be limited to
communications – any document mentioning copyright infringement would clearly be relevant
and should be produced. Please confirm whether there are any documents actually being
withheld based on any objection here.
Please confirm as indicated.
6/27: You have confirmed that all documents will be produced.
Request No. 5(o): Defendants are standing on their objections.
Request No. 6: As noted above under 5(c), we need to be clear on what email boxes exist and
are being produced or searched. To date, you have indicated that the “abuse” and “support”
email boxes are being produced.
See 5(c).
6/27: See the discussion in 5(c).
Requests No. 7 and 8: The responses and objections are discussed in relation to Request No. 5,
above.
8
Request No. 11: You have indicated that defendants will produce the “abuse” mailbox, but to
be clear, this request includes documents about communications with copyright owners, not
just the communications themselves. Please confirm those documents are also being produced.
Please confirm as indicated.
6/27: You have confirmed this understanding.
Requests Nos. 13 and 14: You have confirmed that defendants have no substantive objection
here.
Request No. 17: We have narrowed our request regarding database schemas to request table
names and headings, and you are investigating whether this can be produced.
Let us know if you will agree to the request as narrowed. We understand that there
are simple queries to output the schema from mysql.
6/27: Defendants continue to refuse to produce the request for database schemas as
narrowed. The objection on relevance grounds is unfounded. The schemas will show what
kind of data Hotfile collects about content, users, and activity on the site, and thus are directly
relevant, for example, to issues of knowledge and control. Nor is there any burden to
producing the limited data we have requested here, which can be output with simple queries
from mysql. These should be produced.
Request No. 19: You have offered to produce Google Analytics reports that have already been
run, and we are considering additional reports to request as a way of narrowing this request.
We should discuss whether we can agree to production of reports narrowed as we
have suggested.
6/27: You have confirmed that any existing Google Analytics reports will be produced. We
have proposed a subset of reports to run in order to satisfy the request for data and reduce
any burden on defendants. Please confirm that defendants will run these reports in order to
fully satisfy this request.
Request No. 28: You are checking to see whether there are responsive documents for
shareholders, principals, officers, and directors to which you are objecting to producing. While
you have objected to producing documents related to agents, the response should include, at a
minimum, documents related to any DMCA agent. Finally, you are checking on the volume of
files in response to 28(c) in order for us to address your burden objection (for example, by
requesting an initial list of files before production).
We are waiting for information from you on this.
6/27: You have indicated that you are not withholding any documents for any shareholders,
principals, officers, or directors, and you have agreed to check on responsive documents for
Hotfile’s DMCA agent Luchian. You are now refusing to produce uploaded and downloaded
files, on a meritless SCA objection. I have separately emailed you about that, urging you to
reconsider, as production of such files from the possession of employees is not barred even
under defendants’ theory of the SCA in the pending motion to compel. Further, your response
indicates that uploaded files will be produced; if you are purporting to change your position,
you should serve an amended response. As for downloaded files, your position here has also
changed, as you now indicate the burden is searching for such files using the log data, not the
“cost of production.” There also should be no such burden given that the individuals listed in
Interrogatory No. 1 are in the possession of that information. And defendants have made no
9
SCA objection as to producing downloaded files and cannot stand on this objection. In short,
we are entitled to these documents.
Request Nos. 29, 30: You are standing on your objections to date. We discussed whether
documents would be produced in response to different subparts of Request No. 31 and need to
discuss that in more detail on our next call.
As noted, we need to discuss documents to be produced in response to different
subparts of Request No. 31.
6/27: You have indicated that you will provide agreements and contracts between Hotfile
Entities, documents sufficient to show that Hotfile, Ltd. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Hotfile
Corp., and any communications related to Hotfile’s corporate form. However, we still need
documents showing the provision of services by Hotfile Entities to each other and each Hotfile
Entity’s role in operating Hotfile – documents that would include, for example, agreements
with third parties to perform Hotfile‐related services. Thus, the response remains incomplete
unless defendants can commit to providing additional documents.
Interrogatory No. 3 – The response is incomplete, as we have sought information related to any
website or online business that defendants operate, not just “file hosting” and linking services.
Other online ventures may be relevant to defendants’ intent and knowledge of infringement.
6/27: You are investigating whether Hotfile Corp. operates any other online ventures, but
have not yet agreed to provide supplemental information. Otherwise, defendants are
standing on their objections and the parties are at an impasse.
Interrogatory No. 4 – As we have discussed, the requested information regarding individuals
with whom defendants have had discussions regarding financing for any Hotfile Entity is
relevant to identifying individuals with relevant knowledge.
6/27: I explained above in response to 5(i) that defendants’ objection to identifying potential
investors is meritless. Defendants are standing on their objections and the parties are at an
impasse.
Interrogatory No. 5 – The response is incomplete, as it omits individuals whom defendants
provided earnings in the past or promised to provide earnings to, omits individuals who have
received earnings related to Hotfile from entities other than Hotfile Corp., and omits additional
information about the nature, amount of timing of such payments. Again, the response is
relevant in part to identify individuals with knowledge of relevant facts, and a full response
should be provided.
6/27: You are following up on whether Hotfile Corp.’s earnings accrued to anyone else in the
past.
Interrogatory No. 7 – We have discussed this briefly but should separately discuss objections to
providing any information regarding Titov’s income related to Hotfile.
6/27: As we discussed, this Interrogatory, as well as the rest of Request No. 15 and 34, seek
documents primarily related to damages, discovery on which both parties seek to postpone.
Interrogatory No. 8 – The response is incomplete, as it lists only non‐U.S. resellers. Further, the
definition of “identify” requires listing of full contact information. To the extent that Hotfile has
10
such information, it must be provided – it is not sufficient merely to point to the entities listed
on the website.
6/27: You are investigating whether there is any additional information than that listed on
the website address you provided. If so, it should not be burdensome to produce. Please
confirm whether defendants have this information and will be producing it.
Interrogatory No. 10 – It is not sufficient here to identify documents in order to respond to this
interrogatory. In fact, the documents you have produced to date illustrate why further
explanation is required to fully respond to this interrogatory:
In the documents produced, many of the reasons for which users were terminated or
suspended are unclear, making it difficult to discern “the specific reason(s) therefore” as
requested in Interrogatory No. 10(a). Examples of ambiguous reasons for suspension
listed on the spreadsheet include ‘CP’, ‘cheater checks’, ‘dwld cheat’, ‘scam’, ‘shared’,
‘moron cheat’, ‘traffic’, ‘nazi’, ‘G2S’.
The users are identified on the spreadsheet only by an ID number – the document does
not provide usernames or geographic locations for any users as requested in
Interrogatory No. 10(c).
There is a group of user IDs listed at the end of the spreadsheet for which no ‘reason’ or
‘date’ is provided.
6/27: As we discussed, we continue to believe that we are entitled to an explanation of the
reasons given for termination in the documents produced, including an explanation as to why
no reason or date is provided for some termination. It is not sufficient to point to an
ambiguous document when the Interrogatory calls for a specific response. And it should not
be burdensome to provide a full response.
On Request No. 32, we need to meet and confer regarding the blanket refusal to provide any
documents regarding Lemuria, notwithstanding that in our conversations regarding Lemuria,
you have suggested that discovery should be sought from Hotfile rather than Lemuria.
6/27: You confirmed that any emails in Titov’s possession about Lemuria would be produced.
The issues of producing all contracts and agreements between Lemuria and a Hotfile Entity
and producing all documents about financial arrangements are also being discussed between
plaintiffs and Lemuria.
On Request No. 33 & Interrogatory No. 11, we should discuss defendants’ blanket objection to
information and documents related to defendants’ connection to Florida in light of defendants’
repeated statements of intent to file a motion to transfer venue, and the relevance of as subset
of this information to damages.
6/27: You confirmed that defendants no longer intend to file a motion to transfer venue.
Request No. 34 relates to defendants’ assets and is similar to Request No. 15, which we have
already discussed, but we should be clear whether defendants have separate objections here.
Regarding Request No. 35, we should be clear on whether defendants are limiting their
response based on the definition of a “Hotfile Entity,” in order to ensure that we are receiving
all responsive documents.
11
6/27: As discussed in a separate email exchange, for this and other requests, defendants are
producing documents in their possession, custody, and control, but not identifying which
documents are in the possession of Hotfile, Ltd. but not one of the defendants.
Finally, we should meet and confer regarding defendants’ blanket refusal to produce what are
clearly relevant documents in response to Request No. 38.
6/27: Defendants continue to refuse to produce documents that are plainly relevant. At the
end of the call, you asked if we would be willing to accept just the settlement agreements in
satisfaction of this request. We are considering that, but please clarify whether that is a firm
offer.
12
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?