Viacom International, Inc. et al v. Youtube, Inc. et al

Filing 288

MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 249 MOTION to Strike.. Document filed by Youtube, Inc., Youtube, LLC, Google, Inc.. (Schapiro, Andrew)

Download PDF
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL FILED UNDER SEAL UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK VIACOM INTERNATIONAL INC., ET AL., ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) v. ) ) YOUTUBE, INC., ET AL., ) ) Defendants. ) THE FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION ) PREMIER LEAGUE LIMITED, ET AL., ) on behalf of themselves and all others ) similarly situated, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) v. ) ) YOUTUBE, INC., ET AL., ) ) Defendants. ) ) ECF Case Civil No. 07-CV-2103 (LLS) ECF Case Civil No. 07-CV-3582 (LLS) DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE AND MOTION TO STRIKE MATERIAL FROM VIACOM'S SUMMARY JUDGMENT SUBMISSIONS AND PUTATIVE CLASS PLAINTIFFS' RULE 56.1 STATEMENT David H. Kramer Maura L. Rees Michael H. Rubin Bart E. Volkmer WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI PC 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, California 94304 (650) 493-9300 Andrew H. Schapiro A. John P. Mancini Matthew D. Ingber Brian M. Willen MAYER BROWN LLP 1675 Broadway New York, New York 10019 (212) 506-2500 Attorneys for Defendants TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. II. DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' EVIDENCE ..................... 1 YOUTUBE'S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS SHOULD BE SUSTAINED .................................................................................................... 17 A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. III. Rules 401-403: Relevance...................................................................... 17 Rule 901: Authentication ...................................................................... 18 Rules 801-803: Hearsay ........................................................................ 18 Rule 106: Remainder of Related Writings or Recordings ................... 19 Rule 602: Foundation (Lack of Personal Knowledge) ......................... 19 Rule 407: Subsequent Remedial Measures ......................................... 19 Rule 408: Compromise and Offers to Compromise ............................. 19 Rule 411: Insurance .............................................................................. 20 Rule 701: Improper Lay Opinion ......................................................... 20 Rule 1002: Best Evidence Rule ............................................................ 20 Rule 1006: Summaries ......................................................................... 20 THE COURT SHOULD EXCLUDE IMPROPER EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFFS ...................................................................... 20 A. Hohengarten Ex. 2 (Declaration of Warren Solow) ............................. 20 1. 2. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. Many Statements Made In The Solow Declaration Lack Foundation And Are Demonstrably Erroneous ......................... 21 The Exhibits To The Solow Declaration Are Inadmissible ....... 25 Viacom Improperly Offers Evidence of Insurance as Proof of Misconduct. ............................................................................................ 27 Third Parties' Foundationless Reports And Estimates About The Kinds Of Videos on YouTube Are Inadmissible ................................... 28 YouTube's Removal Of Advertisements From Certain "Watch Pages" Is Inadmissible to Prove Defendants' Liability ........................ 31 Putative Class Plaintiffs Have Improperly Submitted Altered Documents ............................................................................................. 31 Evidence Purporting To Show How Much YouTube Employees Made From the Google Acquisition Is Inadmissible ............................ 32 Licenses and Negotiations Are Inadmissible To Prove Liability ........ 32 Dean Garfield's Deposition Testimony (Hohengarten Ex. 333) is Inadmissible .......................................................................................... 34 IV. THE COURT SHOULD STRIKE HOHENGARTEN EXHIBITS 312 AND 315 AND THE PORTION OF VIACOM'S BRIEF THAT REFERENCES THOSE EXHIBITS ................................................................ 37 THE COURT SHOULD STRIKE THE PUTATIVE CLASS PLAINTIFFS' RULE 56.1 STATEMENT IN ITS ENTIRETY ...................... 42 -i- V. TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page A. B. C. D. VI. The Class SUF is Improperly Argumentative...................................... 43 Many Of The Class Plaintiffs' Proposed Statements of Fact Are Impermissibly Compound ..................................................................... 45 The Class SUF Is Vague and Unintelligible ........................................ 46 The Citations In The Class SUF Mischaracterize the Evidence And Do Not Support The Propositions Asserted .................................. 47 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................. 50 -ii- TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) CASES Alpex Computer Corp. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., 1994 WL 681752 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 1994) .............................................................................33 Amalgamated Lithographers of Am. v. Unz & Co. Inc., 670 F. Supp. 2d 214 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)......................................................................................43 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) ...........................................................................................................32, 38 Bey v. City of New York, No. 99 Civ. 3873 (LMM), 2009 WL 2060076 (S.D.N.Y. July 15, 2009) .........................44, 48 Crane v. Poetic Products Ltd., 593 F. Supp. 2d 585 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)......................................................................................27 Curtis Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Plasti-Clip Corp., 933 F. Supp. 94 (D.N.H. 1995) ................................................................................................27 Davis & Cox v. Summa Corp., 751 F. 2d 1507 (9th Cir. 1985) ................................................................................................25 Domnister v. Exclusive Ambulette, Inc., No. 03-CV-1666 (NGG), 2007 WL 4244151 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 29, 2007) ...............................47 Evans v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 192 F. Supp. 2d 247 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)......................................................................................35 Flaherty v. Filardi, No. 03 Civ. 2167 (LTS)(HBP), 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22641 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 2009) ........................................................................................................................................38 Garnac Grain Co. v. Blackley, 932 F.2d 1563 (8th Cir. 1991) .................................................................................................27 Geoghan v. Long Island R.R., No. 06 CV 1435(CLP), 2009 WL 982451 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 9, 2009) .......................................35 Giannullo v. City of New York, 322 F.3d 139 (2d Cir. 2003).....................................................................................................42 Goldstick v. Hartford, Inc., No. 00 Civ. 8577 LAK, 2002 WL 1906029 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 2002) ..................................42 -iii- TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) Page Griffin v. Hilke, 804 F.2d 1052 (8th Cir. 1986) .................................................................................................27 Humphrey v. Demitro, No. 94 C 6234, 1996 WL 580861 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 4, 1996) ......................................................28 In re: Joint E. Dist. and So. Dist. Asbestos Litig., 995 F.2d 343 (2d Cir. 1993).....................................................................................................19 Jeffreys v. City of New York, 426 F.3d 549 (2d Cir. 2005).....................................................................................................38 Lapine v. Seinfeld, 92 U.S.P.Q.2d 1428, 2009 WL 2902584 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 10, 2009)........................................43 Littel v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 1995 WL 404939 (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 7, 1995) ...............................................................................27 Matosantos Commercial Corp. v. SCA Tissue N. Am., L.L.C., 369 F. Supp. 2d 191 (D. P.R. 2005) ............................................................................27 Orr v. Bank of Am., 285 F.3d 764 (9th Cir. 2002) ...................................................................................................32 Pacenza v. IBM Corp., 04-CIV-5831 (SCR) (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 26, 2007)...................................................................25, 45 Phipps v. Comprehensive Cmty. Dev. Corp., No. 00 Civ. 6063RJHKNF, 2005 WL 287413 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2005) .................................34 PLC Med. Sys., Inc. v. Eclipse Surgical Techs., Inc., 976 F. Supp. 89 (D. Mass. 1997) .............................................................................................34 Reilly v. Natwest Mkts. Group Inc., 181 F. 3d 253 (2d Cir. 1999)....................................................................................................36 Rodriguez v. Schneider, No. 95 Civ. 4083, 1999 WL 459813 (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 29, 1999)...............................................43 Rowe Enter., Inc. v. William Morris Agency, Inc., No. 98 CIV. 8272 (RPP), 2005 WL 22833 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 5, 2005) .......................................45 Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Quanta Computer, Inc., No. C-00-4524 VRW, 2006 WL 2850028 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2006) .......................................33 -iv- TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) Page Santrayall v. Burrell, 993 F. Supp. 173 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) ..........................................................................................17 SEC v. Geon Indus., Inc., 531 F.2d 39 (2d Cir. 1976).......................................................................................................19 Seiler v. Lucasfilm, Ltd., 808 F.2d 1316 (9th Cir. 1986) ...........................................................................................20, 27 Trilink Saw Chain, LLC v. Blount, Inc., 583 F. Supp. 2d 1293 (N.D. Ga. 2008) ....................................................................................33 U.S. Info. Sys., Inc. v. Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers Local Union No. 3, No. 00 CIV. 4763 RMB JCF, 2006 WL 2136249 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2006) ...........................42 United States v. Kaplan, 490 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2007).....................................................................................................17 Vardon Golf Co., Inc. v. BBMG Golf Ltd., 156 F.R.D. 641 (N.D. Ill. 1994) ...............................................................................................34 Walker v. Time Life Films, Inc., 784 F.2d 44 (2d Cir. 1986).................................................................................................26, 27 OTHER AUTHORITIES Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6)..................................................................................................................36 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) ......................................................................................................................42 Fed. R. Evid. 106 ...........................................................................................................................19 Fed. R. Evid. 401 ...........................................................................................................................17 Fed. R. Evid. 402 .........................................................................................................17, 28, 30, 32 Fed. R. Evid. 403 ...........................................................................................................................18 Fed. R. Evid. 407 .........................................................................................................19, 31, 33, 34 Fed. R. Evid. 408 .....................................................................................................................19, 33 Fed. R. Evid. 411 ...............................................................................................................20, 27, 28 Fed. R. Evid. 602 ...............................................................................................................19, 21, 29 -v- TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) Page Fed. R. Evid. 701 ...........................................................................................................................20 Fed. R. Evid. 702 ...........................................................................................................................20 Fed. R. Evid. 801 ...............................................................................................................29, 30, 34 Fed. R. Evid. 802 ...............................................................................................................18, 29, 30 Fed. R. Evid. 803 .....................................................................................................................18, 34 Fed. R. Evid. 805 ...........................................................................................................................18 Fed. R. Evid. 901 ...........................................................................................................................18 Fed. R. Evid. 902 ...........................................................................................................................32 Fed. R. Evid. 1001 .........................................................................................................................32 Fed. R. Evid. 1002 ...................................................................................................................20, 27 Fed. R. Evid. 1003 .........................................................................................................................32 Fed. R. Evid. 1006 .............................................................................................................20, 25, 26 Local Rule 5.1 ................................................................................................................................37 Local Rule 56.1 ...................................................................................................................... passim -vi- HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL FILED UNDER SEAL I. DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' EVIDENCE Defendants assert objections to plaintiffs' evidence1 in support of their motions for summary judgment as follows: Exhibit Hohengarten Declaration 4 Hohengarten Declaration 263265 Hohengarten Declaration 268 Hohengarten Declaration 274 Hohengarten Declaration 408 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 2: Solow Declaration 1 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 2: Solow Declaration 2 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 2: Solow Declaration 4 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 2: Solow Declaration 5 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 2: Solow Declaration 6 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 2: Solow Declaration 7 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 2: Solow Declaration 8 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 2: Solow Declaration 9 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 2: Solow Declaration 10-14 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 2: Solow Declaration 15 Foundation Foundation; Hearsay; Relevance Foundation Foundation Improper Lay Opinion; Foundation Foundation Foundation Foundation Foundation Foundation Foundation; Hearsay; Improper Summary Rule 1006; Best Evidence Foundation; Hearsay; Improper Summary Rule 1006; Best Evidence Foundation; Hearsay; Improper Summary Rule 1006 Foundation; Hearsay; Improper Summary Rule 1006; Best Evidence Foundation; Hearsay; Best Evidence Objections The chart includes objections to evidence other than authentication objections. Authentication objections are set forth below in Section II.B. 1 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL FILED UNDER SEAL Exhibit Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 2: Solow Declaration 16 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 2: Solow Declaration 17-23 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 2: Solow Declaration 24 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 2: Solow Declaration 25 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 2: Solow Declaration 26 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 2: Solow Declaration 26 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 2: Solow Declaration 27 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 2: Solow Declaration 28 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 2: Solow Declaration 29 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 2: Solow Declaration 30 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 2: Solow Declaration 31 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 2: Solow Declaration 32 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 2: Solow Declaration Exs. A-F Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 3 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 12 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 17 Objections Foundation; Hearsay; Improper Lay Opinion Rule 701; Improper Summary Rule 1006; Best Evidence Foundation; Hearsay; Improper Lay Opinion Rule 701; Improper Summary Rule 1006; Best Evidence Foundation; Hearsay; Improper Lay Opinion Rule 701; Improper Summary Rule 1006; Best Evidence Foundation; Hearsay; Improper Lay Opinion Rule 701; Improper Summary Rule 1006; Best Evidence Foundation; Hearsay; Improper Lay Opinion Rule 701; Improper Summary Rule 1006; Best Evidence Foundation; Hearsay; Improper Lay Opinion Rule 701; Improper Summary Rule 1006; Best Evidence Foundation; Hearsay; Improper Lay Opinion Rule 701; Improper Summary Rule 1006; Best Evidence Foundation; Hearsay; Improper Lay Opinion Rule 701; Best Evidence Foundation; Hearsay; Improper Lay Opinion Rule 701; Best Evidence Foundation Foundation; Hearsay Foundation; Hearsay Foundation; Hearsay; Best Evidence; Improper Summary Rule 1006 Foundation; Hearsay Relevance; Foundation Hearsay; Foundation; Relevance 2 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL FILED UNDER SEAL Exhibit Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 21 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 23 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 25 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 27 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 28 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 29 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 30 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 32 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 33 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 34 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 35 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 37 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 38 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 39; Figueira Decl. Ex. 93 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 41 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 42 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 43; Figueira Decl. Ex. 94 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 44 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 45 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 46 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 47 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 48 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 49 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 50 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 51; Figueira Decl. Ex. 78 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 52; Figueira Decl. Ex. 109 Objections Rule 408; Rule 407 Hearsay; Foundation; Relevance Relevance; Rule 403 Hearsay; Foundation; Relevance Hearsay; Foundation; Relevance Hearsay; Foundation; Relevance Hearsay; Foundation; Relevance Best evidence; Relevance; Foundation Foundation Hearsay Hearsay Rule 408; Rule 407 Relevance Hearsay; Relevance; Foundation Hearsay; Relevance; Foundation Hearsay; Relevance; Foundation Hearsay; Relevance; Foundation Hearsay; Relevance; Foundation Hearsay; Relevance; Foundation Hearsay; Relevance; Foundation Hearsay; Relevance; Foundation Hearsay; Relevance; Foundation Hearsay; Foundation; Best Evidence; Relevance Hearsay; Relevance; Foundation Hearsay; Relevance; Foundation Hearsay; Foundation; Relevance 3 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL FILED UNDER SEAL Exhibit Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 53 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 55 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 56 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 57 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 58 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 59 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 60 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 61 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 62; Figueira Decl. Ex. 23 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 63 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 64 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 65 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 66 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 67 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 68 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 69 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 70 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 72 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 73 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 74 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 75 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 77 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 78 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 79 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 80 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 81 Objections Hearsay; Foundation; Relevance Foundation; Relevance Foundation; Relevance Hearsay; Foundation; Relevance Hearsay; Foundation; Relevance Hearsay; Foundation; Relevance Hearsay; Foundation; Relevance Hearsay; Foundation; Relevance Hearsay; Foundation; Relevance Hearsay; Foundation; Relevance Hearsay; Foundation; Relevance Hearsay; Foundation; Relevance Best Evidence; Hearsay; Foundation; Relevance Hearsay Relevance Hearsay; Relevance Hearsay; Relevance Best Evidence; Hearsay; Relevance; Foundation Best Evidence; Hearsay; Relevance; Foundation Foundation Best Evidence; Hearsay; Relevance; Foundation Best Evidence; Relevance Foundation; Relevance Relevance Relevance Foundation; Relevance 4 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL FILED UNDER SEAL Exhibit Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 82 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 83 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 84 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 85 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 86 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 87 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 88 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 89 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 90 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 91 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 104 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 105 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 106 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 107 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 108 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 110 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 111; Figueira Decl. Ex. 12 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 112 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 113 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 114 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 115; Figueira Decl. Ex. 80 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 116; Figueira Decl. Ex. 79 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 117 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 127 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 129 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 136 Relevance Rule 106 Completeness; Foundation; Hearsay; Relevance Foundation Rule 408; Rule 407 Hearsay; Foundation; Relevance Rule 408; Rule 407 Rule 408; Rule 407 Rule 408; Rule 407 Rule 408; Rule 407 Foundation; Relevance; Hearsay; Improper Lay Opinion Foundation Hearsay; Foundation; Relevance Foundation; Relevance Foundation; Relevance Hearsay; Foundation; Relevance Rule 407; Foundation Relevance Relevance Relevance Relevance Foundation; Relevance Foundation; Relevance Foundation Hearsay; Foundation Foundation 5 Objections Foundation; Relevance HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL FILED UNDER SEAL Exhibit Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 137 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 140 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 142 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 144; Figueira Decl. Ex. 13 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 145 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 146 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 148 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 149 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 152 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 153 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 154 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 159 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 160 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 161 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 162 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 163 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 165 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 166 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 167 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 168 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 169 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 172 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 173 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 174 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 177 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 178 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 182 Objections Foundation; Relevance Hearsay; Foundation. Foundation Hearsay; Foundation; Rule 403. Foundation Foundation Rule 408; Rule 407; Best Evidence. Rule 408; Rule 407; Foundation; Best Evidence. Rule 408; Rule 407; Foundation; Best Evidence. Rule 408; Rule 407 Rule 408; Rule 407; Best Evidence. Foundation. Rule 408; Rule 407 Rule 408; Rule 407; Foundation; Best Evidence. Rule 408; Rule 407; Foundation; Hearsay. Rule 408; Rule 407 Rule 408; Rule 407 Rule 408; Rule 407 Rule 408; Rule 407 Rule 408; Rule 407; Foundation. Rule 408; Rule 407; Foundation. Relevance Foundation; Relevance. Foundation Rule 408; Rule 407; Foundation. Rule 408; Rule 407; Foundation. Foundation 6 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL FILED UNDER SEAL Exhibit Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 184 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 185 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 186; Figueira Decl. Ex. 172 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 187 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 188 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 190 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 191 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 192; Figueira Decl. Ex. 14 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 193; Figueira Decl. Ex. 15 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 194 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 195 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 196 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 197 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 198 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 199 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 200 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 201 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 202; Figueira Decl. Ex. 16 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 203 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 204 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 205 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 207 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 208 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 213 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 214 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 215; Figueira Decl. Ex. 47 Foundation Foundation; Rule 403 Rule 408; Rule 407 Rule 408; Rule 407 Rule 408; Rule 407 Relevance; Rule 403 Relevance; Hearsay Relevance; Rule 403. Relevance; Foundation; Rule 403. Relevance; Rule 403. Relevance; Rule 403. Relevance; Rule 403. Relevance; Rule 403. Relevance; Rule 403. Relevance; Rule 403; Foundation; Hearsay Relevance; Rule 403. Relevance; Rule 403. Relevance; Rule 403. Relevance; Rule 403; Hearsay; Foundation Foundation. Relevance; Hearsay. Relevance; Foundation; Rule 403. Rule 403; Foundation. Relevance; Foundation; Rule 403. Relevance Foundation; Relevance; Rule 403. 7 Objections HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL FILED UNDER SEAL Exhibit Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 216 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 217; Figueira Decl. Ex. 64 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 218 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 219 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 221 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 223 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 224 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 225 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 226 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 227 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 228 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 229 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 230; Figueira Decl. Ex. 63 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 232; Figueira Decl. Ex. 43 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 233 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 234 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 235 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 236 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 237 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 238 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 240; Figueira Decl. Ex. 44 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 241 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 242 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 244 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 245 Relevance Foundation; Relevance; Rule 403 Relevance; Rule 403. Foundation; Relevance Hearsay Foundation; Relevance; Rule 403. Relevance Hearsay; Relevance Hearsay; Relevance Hearsay; Relevance Relevance Hearsay; Relevance Relevance Relevance Hearsay; Relevance Hearsay; Relevance Hearsay; Relevance Relevance Foundation; Hearsay; Relevance; Best Evidence Relevance Relevance; Rule 403 Relevance; Rule 403; Foundation; Best Evidence; Improper Summary Rule 1006 Relevance; Hearsay; Foundation Relevance; Hearsay; Rule 403; Rule 408 Rule 408; Rule 407 8 Objections HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL FILED UNDER SEAL Exhibit Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 248 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 249 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 250 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 251 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 252 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 253 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 254 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 255 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 256 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 257 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 258 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 259 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 260 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 261 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 262 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 263 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 264 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 265 Objections Relevance; Best Evidence; Foundation; Hearsay Relevance; Best Evidence; Foundation; Hearsay Relevance; Best Evidence; Foundation; Hearsay Relevance; Best Evidence; Foundation; Hearsay Relevance; Best Evidence; Foundation; Hearsay Relevance; Best Evidence; Foundation; Hearsay Relevance; Best Evidence; Foundation; Hearsay Relevance; Best Evidence; Foundation; Hearsay Relevance; Best Evidence; Foundation; Hearsay Relevance; Best Evidence; Foundation; Hearsay Relevance; Best Evidence; Foundation; Hearsay Relevance; Best Evidence; Foundation; Hearsay Relevance; Best Evidence; Foundation; Hearsay Relevance; Best Evidence; Foundation; Hearsay Relevance; Best Evidence; Foundation Relevance; Best Evidence; Foundation; Hearsay Relevance; Best Evidence; Foundation; Hearsay Relevance; Best Evidence; Foundation; Hearsay 9 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL FILED UNDER SEAL Exhibit Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 266 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 267 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 268 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 269 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 278 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 283 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 284 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 285 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 286; Figueira Decl. Ex. 99 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 288 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 289 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 290 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 291; Figueira Decl. Ex. 176 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 292 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 293; Figueira Decl. Ex. 108 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 294 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 295 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 296 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 297 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 299 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 300 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 301 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 303 Objections Relevance; Best Evidence; Foundation; Hearsay Relevance; Best Evidence; Foundation; Hearsay Relevance; Best Evidence; Foundation; Hearsay Relevance; Best Evidence; Foundation; Hearsay Relevance; Rule 403 Relevance Relevance; Best Evidence; Foundation; Hearsay Relevance; Best Evidence; Foundation; Hearsay Foundation Relevance Hearsay; Foundation; Relevance Hearsay; Relevance Hearsay; Foundation; Relevance; Improper Summary Rule 1006; Rule 403. Hearsay; Foundation; Relevance; Improper Summary Rule 1006; Rule 403. Hearsay; Foundation; Relevance; Rule 411; Rule 403 Hearsay; Foundation; Relevance Rule 411; Hearsay; Foundation; Relevance Relevance Relevance Rule 411; Relevance Relevance; Hearsay Rule 411; Relevance Rule 411; Relevance 10 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL FILED UNDER SEAL Exhibit Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 307 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 308 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 309 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 312; Figueira Decl. Ex. 48, 49 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 313; Figueira Decl. Ex. 65 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 314; Figueira Decl. Ex. 110, 111 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 315 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 316 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 317 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 318 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 319 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 320 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 323 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 324 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 325 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 327 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 328; Figueira Decl. Ex. 177, 178 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 329; Figueira Decl. Ex. 17, 18, 19 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 330 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 332; Figueira Decl. Ex. 26 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 333 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 334; Figueira Decl. Ex. 32 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 335 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 336; Figueira Decl. Ex. 52, 53 Objections Hearsay; Relevance Hearsay; Relevance Hearsay; Relevance; Foundation Relevance; Rule 403; Foundation Relevance; Rule 403; Foundation; Hearsay Rule 411; Rule 408; Rule 407; Relevance; Foundation Relevance; Foundation Relevance; Rule 403 Relevance; Hearsay Relevance Relevance; Hearsay Relevance Relevance Relevance Relevance Rule 411 Relevance; Hearsay; Foundation Relevance; Foundation Relevance Relevance Hearsay Foundation; Rule 403 Hearsay Foundation; Relevance; Hearsay 11 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL FILED UNDER SEAL Exhibit Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 338; Figueira Decl. Ex. 54 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 339 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 340 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 341; Figueira Decl. Ex. 81 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 342 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 343 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 344 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 345 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 346 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 347 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 348 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 349 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 350 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 351 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 352 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 353 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 354 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 358 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 359 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 363 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 369 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 371; Figueria Decl. Ex. 6 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 373 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 374 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 375 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 376 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 377 Objections Relevance; Foundation Foundation Foundation Foundation; Hearsay; Relevance Foundation; Relevance. Relevance Foundation; Relevance. Foundation; Relevance. Foundation; Relevance Foundation; Relevance Foundation; Relevance Foundation; Hearsay; Relevance Foundation; Relevance Foundation; Relevance Foundation; Hearsay Foundation; Relevance; Hearsay Rule 411 Relevance; Hearsay Relevance; Hearsay; Foundation Relevance; Rule 403 Relevance; Hearsay; Foundation Rule 408; Rule 407; Relevance; Rule 106 Rule 408; Rule 407 Relevance Relevance Relevance; Rule 403; Hearsay Foundation; Relevance; Hearsay 12 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL FILED UNDER SEAL Exhibit Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 378 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 382 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 383 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 384 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 385 Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 387 Figueira Decl. Ex. 1 Figueira Decl. Ex. 2 Figueira Decl. Ex. 3 Figueira Decl. Ex. 4 Figueira Decl. Ex. 5 Figueira Decl. Ex. 7 Figueira Decl. Ex. 8 Figueira Decl. Ex. 9 Figueira Decl. Ex. 10 Figueira Decl. Ex. 20 Figueira Decl. Ex. 21 Figueira Decl. Ex. 22 Figueira Decl. Ex. 24 Figueira Decl. Ex. 25 Figueira Decl. Ex. 27 Figueira Decl. Ex. 30 Figueira Decl. Ex. 34 Figueira Decl. Ex. 35 Figueira Decl. Ex. 36 Figueira Decl. Ex. 37 Figueira Decl. Ex. 38 Figueira Decl. Ex. 39 Figueira Decl. Ex. 41 Objections Foundation; Relevance; Rule 403 Rule 408; Rule 407 Hearsay Relevance; Hearsay Foundation Relevance Relevance Relevance; Foundation Relevance; Foundation Relevance; Foundation Relevance; Foundation Hearsay; Relevance Hearsay; Foundation; Relevance Relevance; Foundation Relevance Relevance; Foundation Relevance Relevance Relevance Relevance Foundation Hearsay; Relevance Hearsay; Relevance; Foundation Relevance; Best Evidence; Foundation; Hearsay Hearsay; Relevance Hearsay; Relevance Hearsay; Relevance Hearsay; Relevance; Foundation Relevance 13 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL FILED UNDER SEAL Exhibit Figueira Decl. Ex. 42 Figueira Decl. Ex. 46 Figueira Decl. Ex. 50 Figueira Decl. Ex. 51 Figueira Decl. Ex. 55 Figueira Decl. Ex. 56 Figueira Decl. Ex. 57 Figueira Decl. Ex. 58 Figueira Decl. Ex. 60 Figueira Decl. Ex. 61 Figueira Decl. Ex. 62 Figueira Decl. Ex. 66 Figueira Decl. Ex. 67 Figueira Decl. Ex. 68 Figueira Decl. Ex. 69 Figueira Decl. Ex. 70 Figueira Decl. Ex. 71 Figueira Decl. Ex. 72 Figueira Decl. Ex. 73 Figueira Decl. Ex. 76 Figueira Decl. Ex. 83 Figueira Decl. Ex. 85 Figueira Decl. Ex. 86 Figueira Decl. Ex. 88 Figueira Decl. Ex. 92 Figueira Decl. Ex. 97 Figueira Decl. Ex. 98 Figueira Decl. Ex. 100 Figueira Decl. Ex. 101 Relevance Relevance Hearsay; Relevance Hearsay; Relevance Relevance Relevance Relevance Relevance Relevance Relevance Foundation; Relevance; Rule 403. Relevance Relevance; Rule 408 Relevance; Rule 408 Relevance Relevance; Rule 408 Relevance; Rule 408 Relevance. Relevance. Relevance; Best Evidence; Foundation. Rule 408; Relevance Best Evidence; Relevance; Hearsay. Hearsay; Best Evidence; Relevance; Rule 408; Rule 407 Foundation; Hearsay. Relevance; Rule 408 Relevance Rule 408 Relevance Foundation; Best Evidence; Relevance 14 Objections HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL FILED UNDER SEAL Exhibit Figueira Decl. Ex. 102 Figueira Decl. Ex. 103 Figueira Decl. Ex. 104 Figueira Decl. Ex. 105 Figueira Decl. Ex. 106 Figueira Decl. Ex. 113 Figueira Decl. Ex. 114 Figueira Decl. Ex. 115 Figueira Decl. Ex. 117 Figueira Decl. Ex. 118 Figueira Decl. Ex. 119 Figueira Decl. Ex. 120 Figueira Decl. Ex. 122 Figueira Decl. Ex. 123 Figueira Decl. Ex. 124 Figueira Decl. Ex. 125 Figueira Decl. Ex. 126 Figueira Decl. Ex. 127 Figueira Decl. Ex. 128 Figueira Decl. Ex. 129 Figueira Decl. Ex. 130 Figueira Decl. Ex. 131 Figueira Decl. Ex. 132 Figueira Decl. Ex. 133 Figueira Decl. Ex. 135 Figueira Decl. Ex. 136 Objections Foundation; Best Evidence; Relevance Foundation; Best Evidence; Relevance. Relevance Relevance; Rule 408 Relevance Foundation; Hearsay; Best Evidence; Relevance Foundation; Hearsay; Best Evidence; Relevance Foundation; Hearsay; Best Evidence; Relevance Relevance; Hearsay; Foundation Foundation; Hearsay; Relevance Rule 408 Foundation; Hearsay; Relevance. Rule 407 Rule 408. Hearsay; Foundation Rule 411; Rule 403; Rule 408 Rule 408. Rule 408; Foundation; Relevance Rule 408; Hearsay; Relevance Rule 408; Hearsay; Relevance Relevance; Rule 408; Foundation; Relevance; Best Evidence. Rule 408; Relevance Relevance Hearsay; Rule 403; Relevance. Relevance Relevance 15 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL FILED UNDER SEAL Exhibit Figueira Decl. Ex. 137 Figueira Decl. Ex. 138 Figueira Decl. Ex. 144 Figueira Decl. Ex. 145 Figueira Decl. Ex. 146 Figueira Decl. Ex. 147 Figueira Decl. Ex. 148 Figueira Decl. Ex. 150 Figueira Decl. Ex. 151 Figueira Decl. Ex. 152 Figueira Decl. Ex. 153 Figueira Decl. Ex. 154 Figueira Decl. Ex. 155 Figueira Decl. Ex. 156 Figueira Decl. Ex. 157 Figueira Decl. Ex. 158 Figueira Decl. Ex. 159 Figueira Decl. Ex. 160 Figueira Decl. Ex. 161 Figueira Decl. Ex. 162 Figueira Decl. Ex. 163 Figueira Decl. Ex. 165 Figueira Decl. Ex. 166 Figueira Decl. Ex. 167 Figueira Decl. Ex. 168 Figueira Decl. Ex. 169 Figueira Decl. Ex. 170 Figueira Decl. Ex. 171 Figueira Decl. Ex. 173 Objections Hearsay; Foundation; Relevance. Hearsay; Foundation; Relevance. Rule 408; Hearsay; Relevance Rule 408; Hearsay; Relevance Rule 408; Hearsay; Relevance Rule 408; Hearsay; Relevance Foundation. Relevance Relevance Relevance Relevance Hearsay; Relevance; Rule 408 Relevance; Rule 408 Relevance; Rule 408 Relevance; Rule 408 Relevance; Rule 408 Relevance Relevance; Rule 408 Rule 408; Relevance Rule 408; Relevance Rule 408; Relevance Rule 408; Relevance Rule 408; Relevance Rule 408; Relevance Relevance Relevance Rule 408; Relevance Rule 408; Relevance Foundation; Relevance 16 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL FILED UNDER SEAL Exhibit Figueira Decl. Ex. 174 Figueira Decl. Ex. 175 Figueira Decl. Ex. 176 Figueira Decl. Ex. 179 Figueira Decl. Ex. 180 Figueira Decl. Ex. 181 Figueira Decl. Ex. 183 Figueira Decl. Ex. 184 Figueira Decl. Ex. 185 Figueira Decl. Ex. 186 Figueira Decl. Ex. 187 Addendum to Figueira Declaration II. Relevance Relevance; Rule 408 Hearsay; Foundation Rule 407; Relevance Foundation; Relevance; Rule 407. Relevance Foundation; Relevance; Best Evidence; Hearsay Foundation; Relevance; Best Evidence; Hearsay Foundation; Relevance; Best Evidence; Hearsay Foundation; Relevance; Best Evidence; Hearsay Foundation; Relevance; Best Evidence; Hearsay Best Evidence; Relevance Objections YOUTUBE'S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS SHOULD BE SUSTAINED A. Rules 401-403: Relevance Only relevant evidence is admissible. Fed. R. Evid. 401-402. Although relevance is a liberal standard, the proponent of evidence must still prove the following: "(1) [t]he evidence must be probative of the proposition it is being offered to prove, and (2) the proposition to be proved must be one that is of consequence to the determination of the action." United States v. Kaplan, 490 F.3d 110, 121 (2d Cir. 2007) (quoting United States v. Diaz, 878 F.2d 608, 614 (2d Cir. 1989)). If the proponent cannot demonstrate that the evidence is relevant, it is inadmissible. See Santrayall v. Burrell, 993 F. Supp. 173, 177 (S.D.N.Y. 1998). Here, plaintiffs 17 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL FILED UNDER SEAL frequently offer evidence in support of unrelated propositions, and the evidence is inadmissible for the purpose for which plaintiffs seek to admit it. Evidence may be excluded, though relevant, if it would cause unfair prejudice, confusion, or waste of time. Fed. R. Evid. 403. B. Rule 901: Authentication Authentication is a condition precedent to admissibility. Fed. R. Evid. 901. The following exhibits lack full authentication: Hohengarten Exs. 3-242, 244-288, 293, 289-98, 302, 309, 376-377, 379-383, 387-88; Figueira Exs. 1-10, 12-16, 20-25, 27-30, 33-35, 39-47, 50-51, 59-64, 66-74, 78-80, 82-86, 89, 92-94, 97-103, 105-9,112, 117-19, 125-36, 141-76, 179-97, Figueira Decl. Addendum screenshots. In particular, screenshots are not "true and correct copies" of the website they purport to represent when there is information missing that was present on the original website but not included in the screenshot. See, e.g., Hohengarten Ex. 248; Figueira Addendum screenshots. Similarly, all altered versions of exhibits with superimposed boxes and arrows are also not "true and correct copies" of the originals. See infra Section III.E. C. Rules 801-803: Hearsay Hearsay is not admissible pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 802. Fed. R. Evid. 802. The evidence objected to as hearsay is offered to prove the truth of the mater asserted, yet no hearsay exception applies. Fed. R. Evid. 803. In addition, hearsay within hearsay is inadmissible. Fed. R. Evid. 805. 18 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL FILED UNDER SEAL D. Rule 106: Remainder of Related Writings or Recordings Federal Rule of Evidence 106 provides that "[w]hen a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require the introduction at that time of any part or any other writing or recorded statement which ought in fairness to be considered contemporaneously with it." Fed. R. Evid. 106. E. Rule 602: Foundation (Lack of Personal Knowledge) Testimony is admissible only to the extent based on personal knowledge. Fed. R. Evid. 602. Plaintiffs' declarants lack personal knowledge on issues about which they purport to testify, and plaintiffs rely on evidence where no proper foundation for knowledge has been laid. F. Rule 407: Subsequent Remedial Measures Under Rule 407, evidence of subsequent remedial measures is inadmissible to prove culpable conduct. Fed. R. Evid. 407; SEC v. Geon Indus., Inc., 531 F.2d 39, 52 (2d Cir. 1976) (upholding decision by trial court to exclude evidence that brokerage firm had introduced a new regulation aimed at preventing future securities violations); In re: Joint E. Dist. and So. Dist. Asbestos Litig., 995 F.2d 343, 345-46 (2d Cir. 1993) (remanding for new trial after district court erred in failing to exclude evidence of subsequent remedial measures pursuant to Rule 407). G. Rule 408: Compromise and Offers to Compromise Under Rule 408, settlement offers and conduct or statements in compromise negotiations regarding plaintiffs' claim cannot be admitted to show liability for or the amount of a claim. Fed. R. Evid. 408. See infra Section III.G. 19 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL FILED UNDER SEAL H. Rule 411: Insurance Under Rule 411, evidence of insurance agreements is inadmissible to prove wrongful conduct. Fed. R. Evid. 411. This applies equally to indemnification agreements. See infra Section III.B. I. Rule 701: Improper Lay Opinion Under Rule 701, lay witnesses may offer testimony in the form of opinions or inferences when they are "not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702." J. Rule 1002: Best Evidence Rule Under Rule 1002, to prove the content of a writing or recording, the original writing or recording must be proffered. Fed. R. Evid. 1002. Seiler v. Lucasfilm, Ltd., 808 F.2d 1316, 1319 (9th Cir. 1986). K. Rule 1006: Summaries Under Rule 1006, the contents of voluminous writings or recordings which cannot conveniently be examined in court may be presented in the form of a chart, summary, or calculation. Fed. R. Evid. 1006. The court may order that they be produced in court. Id. Plaintiffs proffer improper summary evidence under this rule. See infra Section III.A. III. THE COURT SHOULD EXCLUDE IMPROPER EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFFS A. Hohengarten Ex. 2 (Declaration of Warren Solow) The Declaration of Warren Solow (Hohengarten Decl. Ex. 2) and the exhibits to that declaration are improper and should be excluded. 20 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL FILED UNDER SEAL 1. Many Statements Made In The Solow Declaration Lack Foundation And Are Demonstrably Erroneous. Solow does not have personal knowledge of the matters about which he purports to testify. Fed. R. Evid. 602. Solow describes his title as "Vice President of Information and Knowledge Management," without further explanation of his job duties (Solow Decl. 1), leaving the declaration without foundation as to his basis for personal knowledge of the wide-ranging subjects in the declaration, many of which have nothing to do with information services or knowledge management.2 For example, in Paragraphs 30-32, Solow declares about Viacom's use of YouTube for "promotional marketing purposes." There is no foundation for the statements in these paragraphs. The declaration does not explain how Solow is "familiar" with Viacom's "use of YouTube" to "display promotional marketing clips." Solow Decl. 30. Not only that, when he was deposed in this case, Solow acknowledged that he lacks knowledge about the full scope of Viacom's extensive practice of uploading video clips of its content to YouTube. See Schapiro Opp. Ex. 1 (423:12:425:12) (Solow professing ignorance about whether data provided to him "from Viacom subsidiaries and Viacom agents regarding their upload activity with respect to Viacom content on the internet and on YouTube" was comprehensive: "When one doesn't know the extent of the universe of a data set it's hard to make a As might be expected in a situation where the witness lacks personal knowledge, many of Solow's averments are wrong. For example, Solow states that "Viacom's . . .copyrighted works" include "Iron Man." Solow Decl. 5. Viacom does not own a copyright in the film Iron Man; its Paramount Pictures subsidiary is merely a distributor of this film--and Paramount has no exclusive distribution rights that are relevant to the alleged infringement in this case. See Counterstatement to Viacom's Statement of Undisputed Facts 4. 2 21 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL FILED UNDER SEAL determination that something is missing."). In light of that admission, it is impermissible for Solow now to declare that Viacom's uploading of clips to YouTube occurred only in "limited circumstances." There is also no foundation for Solow's statement that "[t]o the best of my knowledge, the authorized activities of Wiredset and Fanscape were also known to YouTube." Solow Decl. 32. Solow does not explain how he could possibly know what activities of Wiredset and Fanscape were "known to YouTube." Nor does he explain how he could know whether the accounts that Viacom used to upload material to YouTube "were known to YouTube to be authorized Viacom accounts." Id. 31. The lack of foundation for the averments in Paragraphs 30-32 is confirmed by the fact that Solow's statements--in particular, his claims that Viacom's authorized uploading of material to YouTube was "limited," that the accounts Viacom used to carry out those activities "were known to YouTube to be authorized Viacom accounts," and that the authorized activities of Viacom's stealth-marketing firms "were known to YouTube"--are squarely contradicted by the evidence. See Rubin Declaration in Support of YouTube's Motion for Summary Judgment; see also Chan. Opening Decl. 4, 10; Ostrow Opening Decl. 5; Maxcy Opening Decl. 3-7; Schaffer Opening Decl. 6. The evidence that contradicts Solow's statements includes numerous documents that Solow himself received. For example, Viacom has produced documents showing Solow's awareness of dozens of obscure YouTube accounts authorized by Viacom to upload content to YouTube. See Schapiro Opp. 22 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL FILED UNDER SEAL Ex. 2; Schapiro Opening Ex. 140. Among the accounts that Solow was told that Viacom used to upload videos to YouTube are: "bestweekevertv," "BroadwayJoe," "BroadwayJoe415," "Damonjohnson," "FiveChemical," "jerseymouth1," "isitfridayyet," "ParkMyVibe," "Reaction2006," "snackboard," "thatsfunny," "thatisalsofunny," and "thatsnotfunny." Id. The registration data that was provided to YouTube when these accounts were set up further obscures their connection to Viacom. See Schapiro Opp. Ex. 4. There is similarly no foundation for the statement in Paragraph 26 that "Viacom has not authorized Defendants to copy, distribute, reproduce, display, or perform the copyrighted audiovisual content contained in the clips listed in Exhibit F." Solow Decl., 26. Even putting aside the improper legal argument and conclusions embedded in this statement, as discussed above, Solow lacks personal knowledge of the scope of Viacom's authorized uploading activity. The declaration does not explain how Solow would or could know whether every one of the clips listed in Exhibit F was not authorized by Viacom to appear on YouTube. The lack of foundation for Paragraph 26 is confirmed by the fact that the statement is demonstrably incorrect. Among the clips listed in Exhibit F are clips that Viacom and its agents uploaded to YouTube or specifically authorized to remain on YouTube when uploaded by others. See, e.g., Rubin Decl. 14 & Exs. 87, 117-28; Schapiro Opp. Ex. 397A/B; Schapiro Opp. Ex. 331 (describing Viacom's acquiescence to uploads of clips to YouTube of the television program Human Giant); Schaffer Opp. Decl. 2. Exhibit F also includes a number of clips that 23 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL FILED UNDER SEAL Viacom's marketing agent, ICED Media, found on YouTube and obtained Viacom's permission to use on YouTube in its marketing campaigns. See Schapiro Opp. Exs. 370 (117:10-23; 61:4-63:4; 119:4-32), 373; Solow Decl. Ex. F (listing at least four clips as "unauthorized" that ICED Media obtained authorization to use: video id PvKdAy1Dha4; video id O_zHn77_XaU; video id 77NggE2uLdw; and video id cm9LBDlNj2o). Solow also lacks personal knowledge with respect to the averments made in Paragraphs 24-25. Solow states that an unnamed "team" working under his supervision compared each of the the allegedly infringing video clips on Exhibit F with an undefined "Work in Suit." Solow has no apparent knowledge of the activities of his "team," and any reliance on communications from the "team" is hearsay-within-hearsay. Solow also does not explain what constitutes the purported "Works in Suit" that his team reviewed. He does not even claim that they are copies of the works as submitted to the Copyright Office with Viacom's copyright registrations. Solow's declaration also lacks foundation for the statements made in Paragraphs 28 and 29, which discuss Viacom's use of YouTube's Content ID technology. The declaration does not explain what personal knowledge Solow has for declaring about how or when YouTube "implemented digital fingerprinting." Solow Decl. 29. Beyond the foundation problem, Paragraph 29's statement that YouTube "implemented digital fingerprinting to prevent the infringement of Viacom's copyrighted works on the YouTube website in May 2008" is vague and 24 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL FILED UNDER SEAL misleading. YouTube implemented its Content ID technology before May 2008, and that technology was available for Viacom to use as of October 2007. See King Opp. Decl. 7-10. Finally, the Solow Declaration is objectionable due to the repeated legal arguments and conclusions found in a purportedly factual declaration. Solow characterizes YouTube videos as "infringing"; refers to Viacom's works as having been "infringed"; and refers to Viacom's ownership or control of various "exclusive rights" under the Copyright Act. Solow Decl. 2, 7, 9, 16-27, 28-29. These kinds of legal arguments and conclusions in a non-lawyer's fact declaration are improper. Pacenza v. IBM Corp., 04-CIV-5831 (SCR), slip op. at 8-9 (S.D.N.Y. July 26, 2007). 2. The Exhibits To The Solow Declaration Are Inadmissible The exhibits to the Solow declaration are also objectionable. Federal Rule of Evidence 1006 allows summaries of "the contents of voluminous writings, recordings, or photographs" to be admitted in some circumstances. Fed. R. Evid. 1006. Such a summary must "fairly represent" the underlying material. Davis & Cox v. Summa Corp., 751 F. 2d 1507, 1516 (9th Cir. 1985). The Solow Declaration exhibits do not meet the standards for admissibility. In particular, Exhibit F to the Solow Declaration does not constitute a proper summary for purposes of Rule 1006. Exhibit F does not summarize the contents of the audiovisual material at issue here-- it describes neither the contents of Viacom's purported copyrighted works nor the contents of the allegedly infringing YouTube videos. Nothing about the "contents" of that audiovisual material is included; rather, only titles of works, copyright registration numbers, and file names are listed. Not only does the chart 25 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL FILED UNDER SEAL omit "contents" of the recordings, it does not even include citations to where they may purportedly be found; there are no Bates numbers referencing allegedly produced items.3 Viacom does not even attempt to summarize the contents of the YouTube videos that it claims infringe its copyrighted works, much less submit the actual videos. In any event, however, even if Viacom had provided a chart summarizing the "contents" of the audiovisual recordings, such a chart would not constitute sufficient proof of the material facts on which it bears the burden of production for its claims of copyright infringement. "[C]omparison of secondary or descriptive materials cannot prove substantial similarity under the copyright laws, because the works themselves, not descriptions or impressions of them, are the real test for claims of infringement." Walker v. Time Life Films, Inc., 784 F.2d 44, 51 (2d Cir. 1986) (emphasis added). In Walker, the Second Circuit held that summaries proffered by plaintiff under Rule 1006 were not admissible on the question of infringement:. The Rule [FRE 1006] is designed to deal with the problem of writings, recordings or photographs `which cannot conveniently be examined in court' by allowing them to be presented in `chart [or] summary form,' and does not apply to the movie, which could be viewed in its undistorted entirety by the use of standard projection equipment . . . .[I]n copyright infringement cases the works themselves supersede and control contrary descriptions of them. While Viacom at least provided Bates numbers and extremely cursory descriptions of documents in Solow Exs. A-D, those exhibits likewise cannot be said to "fairly represent" the underlying material. For example, Viacom describes two documents as "assignments" in connection with the film Iron Man, see Solow Ex. D at 13, but review of those documents demonstrates that they are actually distribution agreements, not assignments at all. Schapiro Opp. Exs. 371, 372. 3 26 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL FILED UNDER SEAL Id. at 52; see also Crane v. Poetic Products Ltd., 593 F. Supp. 2d 585, 597 (S.D.N.Y. 2009); Littel v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 1995 WL 404939, at *17 (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 7, 1995) (though "plaintiffs presented the court with multiple volumes of textual analysis of the various works," these "descriptive materials cannot prove substantial similarity under the copyright laws"). Exhibit F also violates the best evidence rule. Under Rule 1002, proof of the contents of a writing or recording requires submission of the actual recording not a description or other substitute evidence. Fed. R. Evid. 1002. In particular, in copyright cases, a plaintiff cannot prove the contents of a copyrighted work or allegedly infringing work without submitting the actual writing or recording. Seiler v. Lucasfilm, Ltd., 808 F.2d 1316, 1319 (9th Cir. 1986). B. Viacom Improperly Offers Evidence of Insurance as Proof of Misconduct. In its Statement of Undisputed Facts Nos. 183-186, Viacom cites the indemnification/escrow provisions of the agreement by which Google acquired YouTube as supposed proof that YouTube was committing copyright infringement and both parties knew it. That tactic is improper for two reasons. First, it is foreclosed by Fed. R. Evid. 411. Matosantos Commercial Corp. v. SCA Tissue N. Am., L.L.C., 369 F. Supp. 2d 191, 194-95 (D. P.R. 2005) (finding indemnification agreements subject to Rule 411); Curtis Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Plasti-Clip Corp., 933 F. Supp. 94, 100-01 (D.N.H. 1995); see also Garnac Grain Co. v. Blackley, 932 F.2d 1563, 1570 (8th Cir. 1991); Griffin v. Hilke, 804 F.2d 1052, 1057 (8th Cir. 1986); 27 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL FILED UNDER SEAL Humphrey v. Demitro, No. 94 C 6234, 1996 WL 580861, at * 1 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 4, 1996). Second, the presence of an indemnification provision in the agreement is entirely unremarkable and thus inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 402. A similar escrow provision can be found in the agreement by which Viacom acquired Atom Entertainment and Addicting Clips in August 2006. Schapiro Opp. Ex. 343. At his deposition, Mika Salmi--President of Global Digital Media at Viacom and previously the CEO of Atom Entertainment which Viacom acquired--explained that provision as standard in large corporate transactions: "I'd be surprised if there was any deal of this size that doesn't have an escrow provision. I think it's just a legal protection. Like a standard check box." Salmi added that it would not be reasonable to assume, by virtue of the presence of the escrow provision in the Viacom/Atom acquisition agreement that either the buyer or seller expected lawsuits or was engaged in misconduct. Schapiro Opp. Ex. 104 (99:1-101:5, 102:20105:10). The Federal Rules bar the indemnification/escrow evidence Viacom proffers for precisely the reasons Salmi articulated. Fed. R. Evid. 411, 402. C. Third Parties' Foundationless Reports And Estimates About The Kinds Of Videos on YouTube Are Inadmissible. In an attempt to equate YouTube with illegitimate services dedicated to pirated content, Viacom introduces what it says is a valid estimate of such content on YouTube. Viacom Br. 8; Hohengarten Ex. 49. Hohengarten Ex. 49 is an April 2006 email from a Google employee to others at Google reporting on statements from an online blog post, which itself was reporting on statements supposedly made 28 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL FILED UNDER SEAL at a conference by Fox Entertainment/News Corporation executive Peter Chernin. According to the Google employee's account of the blog post's recounting of it, Chernin supposedly said that "we did a survey and more than 80 percent of video on this site is copyrighted content." In submitting this document, Viacom ignores at least four levels of hearsay,4 and offers the foundationless number 80% as some estimate of infringement on YouTube, rather than the estimate of copyrighted content it purports to be. The exhibit is inadmissible under Fed R. Evid. 802, 402, 602, and 1002. Hohengarten Ex. 61 is objectionable for similar reasons. In it, the same Google employee who received the email with Chernin's reported comment and replied "Holy Cow" tells another that 80% of YouTube is illegal content. But this Google employee's guesswork has even less probative value than the fourth-hand report of a survey Fox supposedly conducted. There is not even that deficient foundation for this estimate, and Viacom offers none. Indeed, Viacom does not offer any explanation as to how the author of Hohengarten Ex. 61 could have been in a position to know what was and was not authorized to be on YouTube. The exhibit is inadmissible for this reason alone. Fed. R. Evid. 602. In addition, to the extent Viacom offers the exhibit for its truth, it is inadmissible hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801, 802. A statement by someone at Google Assuming some survey of online video users was actually done, the results were somehow communicated to Chernin who repeated them at a conference. Someone attempted to capture Chernin's remarks, then reported them in a news story, which a Google employee read and purported to summarize, long before there was any relationship between Google and YouTube. 4 29 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL FILED UNDER SEAL about YouTube in May 2006, five months before the company acquired YouTube (and while its video service was competing against YouTube) is not a YouTube admission. Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(D) (statement by agent of party non-hearsay if made while the relationship is in existence). Viacom cannot be offering the document to prove Google's state of mind; there is no showing that this thinking informed the decision about acquiring YouTube, and even if it did, that would not be relevant to the inducement test that Grokster sets forth. See YouTube Opp. Section V.B.2; Fed. R. Evid. 402. Viacom also submits Hohengarten Exhibit 62, which includes the statement: "One senior media executive told me they are monitoring YouTube very closely and referred to them as a `Video Grokster.'" On its face, this statement is hearsay, attributed to an unidentified "senior media executive." Fed. R. Evid. 801, 802. To the extent Viacom seeks to offer this statement for its truth, it is inadmissible and should be excluded. Given the origin of statement, all references to "Video Grokster" and other media company statements in the evidence submitted by Viacom should be excluded. See, e.g., Hohengarten Ex. 52 (using term "`rogue enabler'" in quotation marks, indicating it was taken from another source); Hohengarten Ex. 60 (Under heading "Premium Content Owners -- Lessons Learned" is bullet point "They acknowledge You Tube can provide some level of promotion, but (mainly) perceive You Tube as trafficking mostly illegal content `it's a video Grokster'"). Moreover, even if such statements could be attributable to Google, rather than repetitions of media company disparagements, they would still 30 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL FILED UNDER SEAL be hearsay if offered against YouTube: these are pre-acquisition documents, from a time when Google and YouTube had no affiliation. They are not party admissions of YouTube. D. YouTube's Removal Of Advertisements From Certain "Watch Pages" Is Inadmissible to Prove Defendants' Liability. Relying on Hohengarten Ex. 111, Viacom argues that YouTube undermined its DMCA protection by displaying advertising on so called "watch pages" of its site because, according to the document, it ultimately ceased doing so for "legal reasons." As we show in our Motion for Summary Judgment, YouTube is protected by the DMCA safe harbor regardless of whether it shows ads on watch pages. YouTube Br. 76-77. But even under Viacom's theory that YouTube was at one point outside the safe harbor and infringing copyrights, evidence that YouTube took steps to remedy that conduct cannot be used as evidence of previous impropriety. Fed. R. Evid. 407. Because that is the purpose for which Viacom introduces Hohengarten Ex. 111, the exhibit is inadmissible. E. Putative Class Plaintiffs Have Improperly Submitted Altered Documents. Most of the exhibits attached to the Declaration of Elizabeth Figueira are not true and correct copies of the original documents as Ms. Figueira claims. Although there is no explanation of it in her declaration, someone (presumably plaintiffs' counsel) has altered the documents by adding extraneous notations, mainly boxes and arrows, that do not appear in the original documents. These alterations place undue emphasis on portions of documents and detract from the emphasis the authors actually supplied. See, e.g., Figueira Decl. Ex. 63. Moreover, as to some of 31 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL FILED UNDER SEAL the boxes and arrows, such as those on PowerPoint presentations, it is difficult to discern which graphics are in the original document and which are plaintiffs' additions. See, e.g., Figueira Decl. Ex. 97. All such altered materials are not admissible. See Fed. R. Evid. 1001(4) (defining "duplicate" as an accurate reproduction of the original); Fed. R. Evid. 1003. Furthermore, given the alterations, Ms. Figueira has not properly authenticated these exhibits. Fed. R. Evid. 902; see also Orr v. Bank of Am., 285 F.3d 764, 777-78 (9th Cir. 2002). F. Evidence Purporting To Show How Much YouTube Employees Made From the Google Acquisition Is Inadmissible In its separate statement, Viacom includes seven supposedly material propositions (Viacom SUF Nos. 21-27) reflecting returns that YouTube stockholders received on their investment following the sale of the company to Google. Viacom offers no legitimate reason for injecting such information into the summary judgment process, and there is none. The evidence is irrelevant, prejudicial, and inadmissible. Fed. R. Evid. 402; 403. Whatever inference Viacom imagines someone might someday draw in Viacom's favor from these personal details, that inference cannot be drawn in this proceeding. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986) (on summary judgment, inferences drawn in favor of nonmoving party). G. Licenses and Negotiations Are Inadmissible To Prove Liability Viacom rests multiple propositions in its separate statement on negotiations that it had with Google after Google acquired YouTube in October 2006. See Viacom SUF 203-08. Each proposition is a variation on the same theme: Google 32 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL FILED UNDER SEAL was negotiating a deal with Viacom because it knew that YouTube was infringing Viacom's copyrights. But offered for that purpose, any evidence of the negotiations is inadmissible for two reasons. First, if Viacom's theory is to be credited and Google was seeking to resolve possible claims by Viacom against YouTube, Viacom plainly cannot cite the settlement negotiations as an indication of supposed wrongdoing or the amount of supposed liability. Fed. R. Evid. 408; Alpex Computer Corp. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., 1994 WL 681752, at *45 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 1994), rev'd in part on other grounds, 102 F.3d 1214 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Quanta Computer, Inc., No. C-00-4524 VRW, 2006 WL 2850028, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2006) (in pre-suit discussions: "[plaintiff's] license offers and [defendant's] counter-offer are precisely the sort of settlement offers-- made in an effort to avoid litigation--that FRE 408 bars"). Similarly, to the extent plaintiffs seek to admit evidence of license agreements YouTube has entered into with other parties (including releases of liability in those agreements) as evidence that YouTube must have "known" it had liability, that evidence is likewise barred for that purpose. Fed. R. Evid. 408; Samsung, 2006 WL 2850028, at *2. Second, if the negotiations and license agreements are offered to show the existence or awareness of infringement, the evidence is barred as a remedial measure under Rule 407. Fed. R. Evid. 407; Trilink Saw Chain, LLC v. Blount, Inc., 583 F. Supp. 2d 1293, 1317 n.12 (N.D. Ga. 2008) (excluding evidence under FRE 407 that alleged infringer voluntarily discontinued allegedly infringing 33 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL FILED UNDER SEAL activities shortly after being notified of alleged viol

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?