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

Filing 81

MEMORANDUM of Law re 72 Plaintiff's MOTION to Compel RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND INTERROGATORIES (Public Redacted Version)Plaintiff's MOTION to Compel RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND INTERROGATORIES (Public Redacted Version) Memorandum of Law of Defendants Hotfile Corporation and Anton Titov In Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production and Interrogatories by Hotfile Corp., Anton Titov. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Exhibit H, # 10 Exhibit I, # 11 Exhibit J, # 12 Exhibit K, # 13 Exhibit L, # 14 Exhibit M, # 15 Exhibit N, # 16 Exhibit O, # 17 Exhibit 2, # 18 Exhibit 3, # 19 Exhibit A)(Munn, Janet)

EXHIBIT E

From:

Platzer, Luke C [[e-mail]]

Sent:

Wednesday, June 08, 2011 6:17 PM

To:

Gupta, Deepak (22) x4419; Thompson, Rod (27) x4445

Cc:

Fabrizio, Steven B; Pozza, Duane; Leibnitz, Andrew (21) x4932

Subject: RE: Disney v. Hotfile - Meet and Confer
Deepak and Rod: 

Based on our conversation today, this is where I believe we stand on your requests. My
responses in RED. 

-

Luke 

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 9:06 PM
To: Platzer, Luke C
Cc: Fabrizio, Steven B; Pozza, Duane; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]
Subject: RE: Disney v. Hotfile - Meet and Confer 

Luke –  

This email confirms current status regarding Hotfile’s affirmative discovery requests based on
our meet and confer last week. My comments are in green below. My understanding is that the
MPAA’s responses to these requests will not vary materially from those of Plaintiffs, so I am
using the shorthand of “Plaintiffs” to refer to both Plaintiffs and the MPAA.  

Though originally we were promised Plaintiffs’ position on outstanding discovery issues by the
end of last week, you have asked for additional time--until the end of this week--in light of the
“holiday weekend” that just passed. Your request is difficult to swallow in view of Plaintiffs’
motion to compel, which it rushed to get on file first without completing the parties' meet and
confer yesterday. Accordingly, we must insist that any remaining responses be provided by the
end of this week. 

Sincerely, 

Deepak 

**** 
Warner deposition. Warner will make a witness available on July 19, 20, or 21 in Los
Angeles. The only topics for which Warner may refuse to provide a witness are 4, 5, 6 and 8.
We agreed that the appropriate procedure to raise these objections before the deposition is by
motion for protective order, and that Hotfile does not need to file a motion to compel. Please let
us know if Plaintiffs will file a motion for protective order. 

As per Steve’s email exchange with Rod on Monday, the deposition will be on July
20 and we are still considering whether to move for a protective order in advance of
the deposition. 

6/16/2011

Interrogatories 
Interrogatory 1. Hotfile understands that Plaintiffs have limited their response (and their production
for several document requests) to the works attached to the complaint (the “Complaint Works”).
Defendants have explained that Plaintiffs should not be entitled to selectively limit discovery to the
“Complaint Works” but rather must provide the requested information regarding all works of which they
are aware and which they believe are infringed.  

The interrogatory asks for the works that Plaintiffs are alleging Defendants to have
infringed. Plaintiffs have not “limited their response” to this interrogatory. As we have
told you, we believe the interrogatory is premature on the basis that Plaintiffs require
discovery from Defendants (e.g. content reference data and usage data), at which point we
will supplement our response and provide you with a fixed target of works in suit.
Moreover, we are unaware of any requirement in copyright actions that a Plaintiff plead
all instances of infringement the Plaintiff has reason to believe the Defendant engaged in –
we are entitled to select the works and infringements upon which we sue. 

With respect to Plaintiffs’ response that “Instances in which the Complaint works have been on Hotfile
include the URLs” listed in Schedule A you stated you believed that Schedule A lists each and every
such link of which Plaintiffs are aware.  

Upon inquiry, I can confirm that our interrogatory response lists the instances upon which
we are alleging infringement; it does not purport to be a complete list of every instance of
infringement of the works listed in the Complaint. If we had as part of our investigation
for this case had discovered any other instances on which we opted not to sue (and we are
not representing that any such instances exist), the results of such investigation would
clearly be work product. Moreover, we do not believe that the interrogatory is relevant
insofar as it extends beyond infringements Plaintiffs are alleging to infringements of which
Plaintiffs may be “aware” but are not suing upon. In any event, as we have repeatedly told
you, Defendants are in a far better position than Plaintiffs to search their own servers for
additional links that infringe Plaintiffs’ works. 

                We explained last week that Hotfile is entitled to know what alleged infringements Plaintiffs are 
aware of and whether for some works they are just sitting back and watching the infringement happen.  
The studios may not hold back facts.  The parties are in fundamental disagreement on this issue. 

Subsequent to our discussion on Friday, we gave this issue further consideration and remain 
of the view that what you are asking for – in addition to the prematurity objection raised 
above – invades our work product.  Jenner & Block conducted a pre‐complaint investigation of 
infringing activity on Hotfile, and then chose particular works and instances of infringement 
upon which to sue.  Disclosing instances we opted not to allege as infringing would, inevitably, 
reveal our attorneys’ thought processes, the criteria we used for selecting works and 
infringements upon which to sue, and subjective views about how to structure the litigation.  
Put differently, this is a classic case where revealing the “facts” that our investigators 
uncovered while acting at our direction would reveal Jenner & Block’s work product.  
Therefore, we are withholding it.  And, as stated above, we simply do not see any relevance to 
this request.   

Interrogatory 2. Plaintiffs believe they very likely will amend to add the individuals who first became
aware of Hotfile. We await your response. 

6/16/2011

I can confirm that we will amend this response as discussed, but we are still gathering the
relevant information from our clients. 

                Please amend by the end of this week.  Thanks. 

We have some but not all of these names together at this point.  You’ll get a 
supplemental response, but we are doing some investigating to make sure it’s accurate. 

Interrogatory 4. You will get back to us on whether Plaintiffs are willing to supplement this
interrogatory, given that Defendants are likely to seek an early summary judgment on the DMCA issue. 

That accurately captures our discussion on Friday. Upon further consideration, we are
standing on our objection. Given the recently-produced evidence that Defendants (1) did
not have a registered agent for much of the relevant time period, and (2) appear not to have
ever terminated repeat infringers unless and until they were sued by specific copyright
owners, we believe that an “early summary judgment on the DMCA issue” is not a realistic
scheduling possibility in this case and therefore cannot be the basis for a burdensome
contention interrogatory at the very beginning of discovery. In addition, the purpose of
contention interrogatories is not served in this instance. Such interrogatories, if they are
proper at all, exist to ensure that a party is not surprised at trial. If Defendants move on
the DMCA, they will learn of Plaintiffs’ contentions at summary judgment and have every
opportunity to reply. Therefore, we are standing on our objection. 

                We are in disagreement on this issue.   

                                                Agreed. 

Interrogatory 8. Plaintiffs are determining whether employees and related parties have used Hotfile
and will provide account names/numbers of any one using Hotfile for business purposes. 

Plaintiffs have endeavored to determine whether any of plaintiffs have used Hotfile for any
business purposes to make any full-length motion pictures or television programs available
publicly. So far, that is all we have agreed to do, and we are in the process of investigating. 

Plaintiffs’ approach on this request is too narrow.  We would like to know whether there has 
been any use (uploading or downloading) at all.  We should be permitted to take discovery on 
the nature and purpose of the use.  This was a big issue in Viacom v. YouTube and UMG v. Veoh.  
Please let us know where you stand on this request by the end of this week.  Thanks.   

We don’t believe that there’s any relevance to uses other than for making full‐length 
content available.   Our investigation has not uncovered any use of Hotfile by any 
studio to distribute full‐length content (we are investigating promotional content as 
well, even though we don’t think it’s relevant, and have not uncovered any such use 
either).  We will supplement our interrogatory response once our investigation is 
complete, but I do not expect this answer to change.  While you articulated theories 
about why uses of Hotfile other than distribution might be relevant to potential 
noninfringing uses of Hotfile, those arguments do not depend in any way on discovery 
from the Plaintiffs, and as I explained, these hypothetical uses that you theorized 
(such as internal ‘sharing’) would be much more burdensome to investigate than any 
uses of Hotfile for distribution or promotion.    

6/16/2011

Requests for Production.  
General Objections. Plaintiffs are taking a narrow view of who can be considered “affiliates.” We
may need to discuss which custodians (for which entities) are being included in document searching on a
request by request basis. Plaintiffs’ time period objection is also improper because many events prior to
the founding of Hotfile may be relevant to the case. 

As we have stated, we are going beyond the named Plaintiffs to search for documents in
instances where the relevant operating companies at the studios are different from the
rightsholding entity (e.g. Sony, where the operating company includes personnel who also
perform work related to multiple rightsholding entities). As for the time period, we have
not limited our keyword-based searches for Hotfile, Titov, Luchian, and Lemuria, but since
Hotfile did not exist prior to 2009, those keyword searches will inherently not return
responsive documents prior to Hotfile’s launch. We are willing to take under advisement
whether documents prior to Hotfile’s launch should be searched in response to specific
requests, but believe such matters should be discussed in the context of specific requests
rather than globally. For instance, we are not limiting our search for copyright
registrations and other ownership documents by date. However, there are some requests
(e.g. documents related to fingerprinting technology) where there is no conceivable
relevance to documents that precede the existence of Hotfile and a search going back to
earlier periods of time would be unduly burdensome. 

Investigation Materials Objection. This objection, which is ubiquitous, is inappropriate as explained
in our previous email and over the phone. There was some confusion on whether this objection reached
farther back than investigation targeted to the complaint and the complaint works to materials and
communications (e.g. email) stored in connection with DMCA takedown notices that have been sent
over the past year. You will get back to us on this question, and as to what has been preserved and
exists. Defendants explained that such “investigative materials” are highly relevant because such files
provide evidence of what was on Hotfile and whether it was actually infringing or not. They also will
show whether an investigation of facts and circumstances is required to know whether material is
infringing. Under UMG v. Veoh and related authority, such documents are highly relevant to the
question of red flag knowledge. 

Upon further discussion, I can confirm that our objections (as to relevance,
confidentiality/risk of revealing sensitive antipiracy methods, and privilege/work product)
apply both to Plaintiffs’ investigation of Hotfile for purposes of this case and for purposes
of issuing notifications of infringement. Plaintiffs are withholding documents on the basis
of these objections. For reasons already stated, we disagree with your theories of
relevance. The best evidence of what files are on Hotfile, and whether or not they are
infringing, are the files on Hotfile’s system itself, which are in Defendants’ possession.
And, as the court held in Grokster, it is obvious and well-understood that studio movies and
TV programming being distributed for free over the Internet are infringing, and there is
nothing relevant or probative that our instructions to or communications with personnel or
vendors who issue takedowns could show. Our own conduct is not at issue, and the validity
of our notices is shown on the face of the notices themselves. Furthermore, while we believe
these materials to be irrelevant and extremely sensitive, we also believe that there are
substantial privilege issues upon which your requests intrude. All investigation leading up
to the Complaint is privileged, and many communications about DMCA notices will be as
well. 

You did raise an interesting procedural question, given the overlap between the relevance

6/16/2011

issues and the privilege issues with respect to this request, as to how they would be treated
for privilege logging purposes. This may be worth a separate call, as this issue arises in the
context of the plaintiffs’ requests to defendants as well (e.g. your position that you are
withholding all documents related to the Liberty Media and Perfect 10 actions on relevance
grounds; do you intend to privilege-log those)? We believe that we should have a separate
call about privilege logging more generally and that this question may be best addressed
globally. 

We are in disagreement on this investigative material objection, which you represented is a 
“non‐lawyer investigative privilege” for which there is no privilege logging obligation.  I discuss 
this objection further below. 

This is not an accurate characterization of our discussions.  Our primary objection is 
that these documents are not relevant, and that even if they had some marginal 
relevance, the prejudice to Plaintiffs from disclosure would far outweigh any 
probative value (these are highly sensitive antipiracy strategies – we do not generally 
share them with pirates who could use them to circumvent our enforcement.  Note 
that while you may disagree with this characterization of your client, there can be no 
dispute that your client has close commercial relationships with “affiliate” websites 
whose blatant involvement in piracy is beyond question).  You and Rod – not I – have 
characterized our claim as one for “non‐lawyer investigative privilege,” and your 
placing of that term in quotation marks and then attributing it to me is deeply 
misleading.  To the extent I questioned whether a privilege logging obligation exists 
for such documents, it is not because of anything unique to those documents or our 
basis for withholding, but rather because, as a general proposition, privilege logging 
obligations do not arise for documents withheld on relevance or comparable 
objections.  To the extent I claimed that there were also serious privilege issues with 
your request, that is not on the basis of a blanket “non‐lawyer investigative privilege” 
but rather because many of the materials sought by your requests are going to be 
privileged in the classic sense, including attorney work product (insofar as vendors, 
acting at the direction of antipiracy counsel and for purposes of identifying potential 
enforcement targets and collecting evidence for potential enforcement actions, 
monitor and collect information regarding infringement by various websites) and 
attorney‐client privilege (insofar as counsel at studios provide legal advice to 
antipiracy personnel regarding takedown policies and procedures).  We are also 
considering the extent to which we may agree to log documents we withhold on the 
basis of our relevance/probative value outweighed by potential prejudice objection 
stated above, and we consider discussions regarding the parties’ precise logging 
obligations to be ongoing in the course of our separate discussions regarding privilege 
logs.  I invited you to supply us with any legal authority for the proposition that 
documents withheld on the basis of objections other than privilege or work product 
need to be listed on an itemized log. 

We are considering whether there might be any categories of documents responsive 
to this request that we could produce without running afoul of our objections.  In 
particular, you asked us to consider (1) documents reflecting instances in which we 
discovered one of our works on Hotfile and did not take it down, and (2) documents 
that do not reflect the process by which infringing works on Hotfile are discovered, 
but rather show the process regarding whether or not to issue a notice once a work on 
Hotfile has been discovered.  I expressed my view that this latter category was likely 
privileged. 

6/16/2011

Registrations, transfers, work for hire agreements, assignments etc. for all allegedly infringed
works. (Requests Nos. 3-4). Plaintiffs attempt throughout to limit to the Complaint Works is improper
and Plaintiffs are not “dependent on Defendants” to identify those works they presently know and
believe are infringed. Indeed, it is Plaintiffs’ burden to identify these works. Defendants will require all
documents regarding ownership and chain of title, not just registrations and “short-form assignment
agreements.” This would effectively turn what is supposed to be a rebuttable presumption of ownership
under the law into an irrebuttable presumption by blocking discovery. Given it is a precondition to show
liability that Plaintiffs must establish ownership, all documents must be provided. Let us know if
Plaintiffs will reconsider on this issue. 

First, as to the works in suit, we have a right to decide the works upon which we are
bringing suit, and we are entitled to supplement that list as discovery yields additional
infringements. Second, as we have stated, we are willing to discuss with you whether there
are any specific works in suit for which you have a good faith belief that additional
discovery into Plaintiffs’ ownership is required, and if such a good faith basis exists, we
may be willing to consider additional discovery as to those specific works. However, we
believe that your global request for all ownership-related documents for all works is a
purely speculative fishing expedition that is designed to harass, and intend to stand on our
objections. We suggest that you first review the materials provided and we can talk if you
have issues with or questions about particular works. 

We are in  fundamental disagreement on this issue. 

Our position remains unchanged.  The very purpose of the statutory presumption of 
ownership based on a valid registration is so that  “plaintiffs need not produce 
mounds of documents in order to maintain an infringement action.”  In re Napster, 
191 F. Supp. 2d 1087, 1100 (N.D. Cal. 2002).  In addition, subsequent to our last meet 
and confer, I have been following up with the studios regarding how these various 
records are kept.  The types of documents you are requesting are not maintained in a 
single place, but are rather scattered across various different data repositories within 
the companies (i.e. some in central databases, some in storage, some in various 
different locations in the respective studios’ production departments, etc.) and that it 
would be an extremely onerous task to assemble them the way you have requested, 
particularly given the large number of works that will eventually be in suit.  As I have 
said, we are not ruling out this more invasive type of search in the event you have 
questions about specific works, but as a global matter we think your request is 
burdensome, speculative, and designed to harass. 

That being said, you proposed on our call that we “defer” this request (i.e. you don’t 
move on it now, and we wouldn’t take the position that you had failed to move 
expeditiously).  We have considered, and accept, your proposal. 

Request No. 5-6, 9, 14. Plaintiffs agree to produce takedown notices they and their vendors have sent to
Defendants, records reflecting notices Plaintiffs and their vendors have sent to Hotfile concerning the
infringement of Plaintiffs’ copyrights on the Hotfile Website, records reflecting Plaintiffs’ use of
Hotfile’s special rights holders accounts to request removal of files infringing their copyrights from the
Hotfile Website, and copies of files downloaded from the Hotfile Website that reflect Defendants’
infringement of the illustrative works identified in Exhibit A to the Complaint. Plaintiffs should not
limit their production to the Complaint Works, as explained above. Plaintiffs stated that “records
reflecting notices” will be database records and spreadsheets regarding take down notices sent. In our

6/16/2011

meet and confer, Hotfile also requested (1) all email communications regarding takedown notices that
were sent, which are relevant under the UMG v. Veoh / Viacom v. YouTube standard for red flag
knowledge – whether an investigation of facts and circumstances is required to identify infringement -and (2) all documents, including the preserved downloaded files themselves, for which takedown notices
were sent or not sent. The latter files are all critical, including those for which no takedown notices
were sent. These documents all go to establishing infringement and showing the difficulty in identifying
infringing / unauthorized content, thus rebutting red flag knowledge. The category of files for which
notices were not sent go to show what Plaintiffs chose to leave up (fair use, promotional use, and
errors). You are looking into whether Plaintiffs will provide the related email communications and what
exists and whether Plaintiffs will produce the files stored in connection with investigating and sending
out DMCA takedown notices. 

As you indicate, we are not limiting our production of takedown notices to the Complaint
works (I believe that with respect to the records, we told you that we would be producing
the notices themselves and then spreadsheets reflecting instances in which the Hotfile
takedown tool was used instead of a notice). 

I indicated that we would consider internally, and discuss with our clients, our position
regarding materials reflecting our investigation of Hotfile for purposes of issuing takedown
notices. Upon consideration, it is our position that these materials (e.g. communications
with takedown personnel, and any materials gathered for purposes of issuing takedowns)
are subject to the same objections we have raised with respect to our pre-Complaint
investigation materials, and we are standing on those objections. As discussed above, we
believe such materials to be irrelevant and highly sensitive, revealing antipiracy processes,
and that your request also unduly intrudes upon privilege and attorney work product. At a
minimum, any probative value (and we believe there is none) is outweighed by these
considerations. 

We are in  fundamental disagreement on this issue – particularly Plaintiffs’ novel investigation 
materials objection. 

As explained above, we are not making some “novel investigation materials 
objection” but simply believe that these materials are globally irrelevant or at the very 
least that any marginally probative value is outweighed by the potential prejudice 
from disclosure, and that there are also extensive privileged materials (as explained 
above) contained within the types of documents you are demanding. 

Request No. 8. Plaintiffs agreed to look into whether they are willing to provide licenses regarding
internet distribution. 

It is correct that we are taking your proposed narrowing of this request to Internet
distribution under advisement, but as I advised you, we do not believe licenses are
relevant. What we are considering is whether there exist any licenses or authorizations to
third party that authorizes the third party to distribute full-length motion pictures or
television programs on the Internet without DRM or restrictions on further distribution. If
such licenses existed for any works in suit (by which I mean not only the Complaint works,
but also any works that may be included in the case in the future, which we anticipate will
encompass thousands of works), that might be relevant. We are in the process of checking. 

We are in  fundamental disagreement on a limitation to “full length motion pictures or 
television programs without DRM.”  The injunction and damages issues require a broader search 

6/16/2011

– and we cannot take on faith what Plaintiffs consider to be “comparable licenses.”  What is the 
status of Plaintiffs’ searching for the documents?  When will they be produced? 

We are in disagreement about this request.  We think that our investigation into any 
DRM‐free distribution with no restrictions on further distribution, as discussed, will 
answer your question regarding whether such licenses show authorization (we have 
yet to learn of any such distribution by any studio, and although we are still 
investigating with respect to some plaintiffs, we do not expect to discovery such 
licenses as they would be inconsistent with the plaintiffs’ general approaches to 
content protection).  Insofar as you want the economic terms of the licenses to show 
damages, we think the request is premature, and insofar as you want the licenses to 
show the availability of equitable relief, we think that the mere existence of licenses is 
insufficient to make injunctive relief unavailable (an area where we disagree on the 
relevant legal standard). 

                                                As with your ownership‐related proposal, however, you suggested that our 
disagreement about this request be “bracketed.”  We have considered, and accept, your offer to defer this 
disagreement for a later point in the case. 

Request No. 10. You agreed to look into whether Plaintiffs are willing to do a search for DMCA
policies for sites Plaintiffs own and control. We believe that internally published policies, shared
outside of the control group regarding the DMCA should also be produced. These would include any
guidelines used to evaluate sites for DMCA compliance etc. Can you agree to look into whether such
documents exist, and then we can discuss the privilege issue? 

As I recall, we discussed that this request has two distinct applications: policies and
guidelines regarding the studios’ issuance of notifications of infringement, and policies
regarding any user-supplied content on websites operated by the studios. I advised you
that the first type of policy was subsumed within our discussion of the studios’
investigations of online piracy for purposes of issuing takedown notices, and that I was
skeptical we would be willing to produce such materials but that we would take it under
advisement. Upon further consideration, I can confirm that we believe any such materials
to fall within our objections discussed supra. As for the second type of policy, we believe
this to be the same issue as the one raised by RFP 32 and 33 below, which we are
continuing to consider.  

As discussed, our understandings are different here.  Regarding the first type of policy, we are in 
fundamental disagreement on non‐privileged internally published policies / guidelines and 
Plaintiffs use of the investigation materials objection.   

As discussed, we are standing on our objections related to our takedown process with 
respect to the first kind of policy, and with respect to the second kind of policy, we 
think that how we run our own websites is irrelevant.  While I informed you that I do 
not believe that the Plaintiffs’ websites are comparable to Hotfile in any way, I also 
made clear that our objection here does not depend upon the lack of similarity 
between our online operations and Hotfile’s.  Because this case is about Hotfile’s 
conduct and the legal standards governing it, we don’t think our own operations are 
relevant.  (Even if you were to establish, speculatively, that we were doing something 
wrong regarding the DMCA – which I have no reason to believe we are ‐‐ that would 
not tend to exonerate your client). 

6/16/2011

Request No. 11. You will get back to us on whether there is a subcategory of documents regarding
Plaintiffs’ burden of identifying infringement on the Internet. This would include, e.g. documents
describing the workflow for sending takedown notices on the Internet. 

On this point, our recollections appear to differ. We discussed the fact that documents
showing the workflow for takedown notices are what you were interested in, and I told you
that we viewed those documents as falling within the same category as our instructions and
communications regarding takedown notices, on which I offered to take your proposal
back to the team for internal discussion but also expressed my belief that it is unlikely we
will agree to produce these materials for the reasons discussed above. Having conferred
regarding these issues, I can confirm that we are standing on our objections stated above. 

We are in fundamental disagreement on this issue and Plaintiffs’ self‐styled investigation 
materials objection.   

                We’ve covered this area as discussed above. 

Requests No. 12. Plaintiffs have done a broad search for the keyword “hotfile” across all Custodians.
Plaintiffs will identify the custodians searched as required under the ESI plan.  

That is correct, albeit with the caveat that by “custodians” we mean “custodians whose
records we are searching in accordance with the ESI plan.” We may be retrieving some
documents (such as ownership information) from persons at the companies whom we do
not have reason to believe would have Hotfile-related documents, and we are not searching
such persons’ files for “hotfile” merely because they were the custodian of non-hotfilerelated documents we are producing in the case.  

Thanks.  Please produce these documents by the end of this week. 

                                                We are working on reviewing these documents, but cannot promise to have our 
review and production completed on the timetable you’re asking for (we also note your own failure to 
produce documents thus far).  

Request No. 15. These business model documents are critical given that Plaintiffs’ core theory is that
Hotfile’s business model is flawed. You agreed to go back and see whether Plaintiffs can do searches
the third-party businesses specifically listed in our request. We strongly believe searches should be done
for all of those businesses, and that the burden should be minimal. I note that admissions regarding
YouTube’s business model were probative in Viacom v. Youtube. 

It is correct that Plaintiffs are taking under advisement whether to perform searches for
third-party businesses beyond Hotfile, and will advise you of our position following
discussions with our clients.  

Please get us an answer this week.   

We have considered this request, and have concluded that the searches you have 
asked for are not relevant and are quite burdensome (including burdensome privilege 
review requirements).  We are standing on our objections.  While you suggested that 
we search “business people” rather than attorneys to minimize the number of 
privileged documents, we think that documents in the possession of business people 
are even less relevant than those in the hands of lawyers who might have thought 

6/16/2011

about or considered the sites you list.  We think this request is a “debater’s point” 
style request that isn’t really relevant. 

Request No. 18. This request is relevant for a number of reasons. We offered to narrow the request to
policies and memos regarding voluntary or promotional posting on the Internet of content for free. This
would include trailers, indy works, and promo episodes etc. You agreed to look into whether such
policies and memos exist and whether they can be produced. 

On this point, our recollections appear to differ slightly. I agreed that we would search for
any use of Hotfile by the studios to make full-length motion pictures or television programs
available on the Internet without DRM or restrictions on further distribution, and would
let you know if such investigation revealed any use of Hotfile for the works in suit (defined
broadly). We understand that you have also requested a search for materials related to
online postings of (1) other works on (2) other websites. We do not believe this broader
search to be relevant but are considering your request. 

Yes, we would like all responsive documents to the request (memos, emails etc.), i.e. the 
“broader search” as narrowed and clarified above.  Please get back to us on this by the end of 
the week. Thanks. 

                                                We have considered your request, but we continue to believe that the investigation 
reflected in my email above is the most that is appropriate here. 

Requests Nos. 21-22. Documents regarding the availability of fair use / uncopyrighted and public
domain works is relevant to substantial non-infringing uses, and the red flag knowledge question,
because this would necessitate that Hotfile engage in an investigation of facts and circumstances to
determine whether any work on its systems is infringing. This also underscores a key statutory
consideration under the DMCA and copyright law generally – web hosting sites should not be saddled
with costly policing burdens that might impair their ability to distribute material in the public domain
etc. I understand that Plaintiffs are refusing to conduct a search of such documents. 

That is correct; we intend to stand on our objections.  

                                We are in disagreement on this issue. 

                                                Agreed. 

Request No. 23. Plaintiffs are looking into and will provide whatever written policies the studios have
regarding the use of digital rights management protect their content. 

                That is correct, with a caveat. We are looking into the existence of such policies for
content that is distributed over the Internet. 

Thanks. 

                                                We are in the process of collecting such materials insofar as they exist.  As I 
explained, these are not “written policies” so much as standard term sheets that attach to online distribution 
deals.  

Request No. 25. You agreed to see what is practically accessible, and the scope of a reasonable search
for content identification technology related documents.

6/16/2011

That is correct. We are considering what kind of information might be practically
provided regarding fingerprinting technology, while objecting as irrelevant to
watermarking technologies (and indicating that “blocking” and “filtering” are just
methods for using information supplied by content identification technologies, and are
therefore not reasonably susceptible to a freestanding search, but would rather be
subsumed in discussions of fingerprinting technology). With respect to DRM we will be
providing materials as per RFP 23 above. 

Please get back to us on this by the end of the week.  Thanks. 

We are working hard on coming up with a constructive proposal here.  As I have 
explained, this is not an easy task to coordinate across five studios and the MPAA 
given the different organizational structures and different ways in which they divide 
responsibility over areas that touch upon fingerprinting technology.  We are going to 
propose a reasonable set of documents that we can give you on this request, but it is 
going to take a little more time to figure out exactly how to define that set in a way 
that is going to be a manageable and intelligible search.  You suggested that the 
questions that should guide our search are (1) what is fingerprinting, (2) who are the 
vendors who provide it, (3) what are the various packages or services they offer, (4) 
what are the pros and cons of the technology, and (5) how does it fit into the overall 
content protection scheme.  I expressed my concern that (4) and (5) may often involve 
privileged documents, but I appreciate the clarification as to what you’re looking for. 

Request No. 26. You agreed to see what is available in terms of documents about the relationship
between the MPAA and the studios. 

I advised you that I believed that, insofar as we will be withholding as privileged and as
work product communications between the MPAA and the studios related to this litigation,
the federal rules may entitle you to information sufficient to show the existence of an
attorney-client relationship between counsel at the MPAA and persons working at their
direction and the Plaintiffs. Upon further consideration, it is our view that the appearance
of MPAA counsel in this action as counsel of record for the Plaintiffs is sufficient for this
purpose at this time, and that Defendants have no more basis to challenge MPAA’s
counsels’ privilege with plaintiffs than Jenner & Block’s. Upon the parties’ exchange of
privilege logs, you will have sufficient information (from the privilege logs themselves) to
assess the basis on which privileged documents will be withheld.  

As I explained on the call, we need to understand the role of MPAA broadly to understand its 
scope of responsibilities etc.  and therefore would like at a minimum membership agreements 
or a charter.  We are in disagreement on this issue. 

We disagree – to the extent we withhold documents on the basis of privilege, our 
privilege log will reflect the basis for such withholding.  We suggest that your 
generalized desire to understand how the MPAA works is better addressed through 
the deposition process. 

Request No. 27. You agreed to check if there are organizational charts for each of the Plaintiffs. 

That is correct, but subject to two caveats: First, I told you that we were considering
whether we would produce such organizational charts or otherwise identify the responsible

6/16/2011

personnel; I did not commit to making such a production in advance of conferring with my
team and our clients, and second, any org chart would be for digital business as requested
by the RFP, not for the plaintiffs generally. 

Please get back to us on this by the end of the week. 

We intend to identify the key personnel for you.  The “org chart” approach might not 
be feasible (there’s too much dispersal of relevant responsibilities, and not all studios 
have the kinds of charts you’re envisioning).  But as I understand it, what you’re 
looking for is “who are the key people with responsibility over these areas,” and we’re 
working on getting you something.  You’ve stated that you’re looking for about 4 or 5 
people per studio, and that you’re looking for an “80/20” solution. 

Request No. 32. You are looking into whether there are spreadsheets or other documents identifying all
the websites owned or controlled by Plaintiffs and will produce those to the extent available.  

This is not consistent with my recollection or notes from the call. I indicated that your
request to limit your request to a spreadsheet or list, if any exist, might resolve our burden
objection, but told you that we still believed such inquiry to be irrelevant. I advised you
that we would take the matter under advisement and let you know of our position following
a chance to confer with my team and our clients. 

Please get back to us on this by the end of the week. 

We have considered this request and have reached the conclusion that what you’re 
asking for is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 
admissible evidence, and are therefore standing on our objections.  As I explained 
above, how we run our own sites isn’t relevant.  (And I also believe that our sites 
aren’t comparable to yours, but our this fact merely enhances rather than forms the 
basis of our relevance objection). 

Request No. 33. Plaintiffs will investigate what DMCA policies and Terms of Services are reasonably
available for sites owned or operated by Plaintiffs. 

At this point we were nearing the end of the call, but my recollection was that I attached
the caveat that we could look into this issue if we decided to produce information
identifying the studios’ websites. If I failed to express that limitation on the call, I apologize
for the omission: we would look into this only in the event we decided to produce
information in response to RFP 32, which we are still considering.  

Please get back to us on this by the end of the week. 

                                                See response above. 

Request No. 35. Though we didn’t discuss this, we expect Plaintiffs should provide e.g. all nonprivileged communications reviewed in connection with answering interrogatories number 2 and 8.  

Communications with antipiracy vendors, which is how four of the five Plaintiffs learned of
Hotfile, are subject to our objections stated above. Interrogatory 8 is not covered by RFP
35, as RFP 35 requests documents pertaining to the First Set of Interrogatories and
Interrogatory No. 8 is part of the Second Set. However, we will take under advisement

6/16/2011

whether to provide documents in response to RFP 35 as it relates to Interrogatory No. 8. 

We are in fundamental disagreement on Plaintiffs’ novel investigation materials privilege and 
related objections.  Please get back to us on the Rog 8 issue by the end of the week. 

To the extent this does not call for the production of documents we are otherwise 
withholding on the basis of our objections, we will produce documents in response to 
RFP 35. 

Please let us know if you want to discuss any of the above. In particular, given the global
application with respect to both Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ productions, as well as the fact that
the parties proposed to the Court that we would exchange privilege logs on June 15 (although no
order has yet been entered), we recommend that we have a separate call to discuss privilege
logging procedure and scheduling soon, ideally at the beginning of next week. 

Yes, we are discussing privilege logging tomorrow. 

We look forward to discussing this issue further.  As we understand it, you are 
currently considering adopting a categorical approach for attorney‐client and work‐
product documents, but not agreeing to a categorical approach on documents 
withheld on the basis of the relevance/commercially sensitive antipiracy practices 
objection.  However, you are continuing to think about this and will advise us of your 
position.  In the interim, however, we mutually agree to continue next week’s 
privilege log date, and to agree on a later date at a later time. 

Luke C. Platzer
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.

6/16/2011