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

Filing 92

NOTICE by Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., Disney Enterprises, Inc., Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Universal City Studios Productions LLLP, Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. re 91 Redacted Document,, Plaintiffs' Notice of Filing Declaration of Luke C. Platzer in Support of Plaintiffs' and the MPAA's Motion to Authorize Use of Categorical Privilege Logs (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Luke C. Platzer in Support of Plaintiffs' and the MPAA's Motion to Authorize Use of Categorical Privilege Logs (Public Redacted Version), # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D)(Stetson, Karen)

EXHIBIT D

From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

[e-mail]
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 6:10 PM
Platzer, Luke C; [e-mail]
[e-mail]; [e-mail]; Fabrizio, Steven B; Pozza, Duane
RE: Privilege Logs

Luke -- It is not our position that you did not meet and confer on this issue.
Regards,
Tony
-----Original Message----From: Platzer, Luke C [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 7:19 PM
To: Schoenberg, Tony (28) x4963; Gupta, Deepak (22) x4419
Cc: Leibnitz, Andrew (21) x4932; Thompson, Rod (27) x4445; Fabrizio, Steven B; Pozza, Duane
Subject: RE: Privilege Logs

Tony:
Although I realize it’s a cliché, I’d rather not negotiate against myself about the form of the logs if Defendants
aren’t willing to offer a counterproposal and have already ruled out the main item we’re interested in. As I
understand the Defendants’ position, you have ruled out any categorical logging with respect to Plaintiffs’
investigation(s) of Hotfile, and would want those materials to be logged on an itemized basis. Unfortunately,
our documents pertaining to the investigation(s) of Hotfile are driving much of the burden to us of creating an
itemized log, so any agreement that doesn’t let us create categories for those types of documents wouldn’t
address our concern.
I think this is a point on which we may simply have a disagreement on which Plaintiffs may need to seek the
assistance of the court. If it’s your position that we haven’t fully met and conferred on this issue, please let us
know as soon as possible.
Regards,
Luke
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 11:54 AM
To: Platzer, Luke C; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Fabrizio, Steven B; Pozza, Duane
Subject: RE: Privilege Logs

Luke,
We do not intend to make any counterproposal about privilege logs. As I mentioned on the phone, if you
want to email us a proposal for a hybrid approach under which investigative/anti-piracy materials would
still be logged in the traditional manner, we will consider it, though I can't promise we would agree to it
without seeing the particulars of the proposal (and, of course, we would need buy-in from our local
counsel). As I also stated, we are willing to agree to a July 15 deadline for exchanging logs but we don't
want to push it to August 1.
1

Regards,
Tony
-----Original Message----From: Platzer, Luke C [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 9:10 AM
To: Schoenberg, Tony (28) x4963; Gupta, Deepak (22) x4419
Cc: Leibnitz, Andrew (21) x4932; Thompson, Rod (27) x4445; Fabrizio, Steven B; Pozza, Duane
Subject: RE: Privilege Logs

Tony:
I understand from our call yesterday that Defendants have declined Plaintiffs’ proposal to use
categorical privilege logs in this case. As Defendants have also declined our previous proposal for
privilege log simplification in this case, it is my understanding that the meet and confer on this topic is
now concluded, and that it is now incumbent upon Plaintiffs to consider whether to queue this issue up
for the Court. (Although I briefly floated the prospect of a “hybrid” approach on the call with you
yesterday, I subsequently realized that I had already discussed the idea with Rod on a different call last
week, when he raised it, and that therefore, Defendants have already considered and rejected such an
approach). If I am mistaken and Defendants intend to offer a counterproposal regarding privilege
logging, please let me know as soon as possible.
Regards,
Luke
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 2:14 PM
To: Platzer, Luke C; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Fabrizio, Steven B; Pozza, Duane
Subject: RE: Privilege Logs
Thursday works for me. How about 1pm PST?
-----Original Message----From: Platzer, Luke C [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 11:02 AM
To: Schoenberg, Tony (28) x4963; Gupta, Deepak (22) x4419
Cc: Leibnitz, Andrew (21) x4932; Thompson, Rod (27) x4445; Fabrizio, Steven B; Pozza, Duane
Subject: RE: Privilege Logs

Thanks, Tony. On the housekeeping front, we think this should be styled as a joint
addendum/supplement to the proposed scheduling report, since we are in effect modifying our
proposal to the Court. But if your local counsel thinks otherwise, I am happy to entertain other
procedural vehicles for the stipulation.
For a substantive conversation about the logs, my Thursday is wide open if there’s a time
(preferably during East Coast business hours) that works for you?
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 1:40 PM
To: Platzer, Luke C; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Fabrizio, Steven B; Pozza, Duane
Subject: RE: Privilege Logs
2

Luke -- We're checking with our local counsel on the housekeeping part of this. We'll get back to
you about that hopefully later today. I would like to talk further with you about the substantive
issue (i.e., categorical logs). When are you available this week to talk?
-----Original Message----From: Platzer, Luke C [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 7:39 AM
To: Schoenberg, Tony (28) x4963; Gupta, Deepak (22) x4419
Cc: Leibnitz, Andrew (21) x4932; Thompson, Rod (27) x4445; Fabrizio, Steven B; Pozza, Duane
Subject: Privilege Logs

Tony and Deepak –
Defendants informed us last week that they are still considering our proposal to utilize
categorical privilege logs, and that the parties have agreed to continue the originallyproposed June 15 date for exchanging privilege logs. As a housekeeping matter, we
believe that – even though the Court has not entered an order regarding the June 15
date – that our agreement to continue the date should be filed as a stipulation with the
Court, given that it is relevant to the court’s consideration of the proposed schedule.
Agreed? If so, we can take the lead on drafting something for your signature.
-

Luke

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.

3