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

Filing 380

DECLARATION of MICHAEL RUBIN in Support re: 177 MOTION for Summary Judgment Regarding Applicability of the DMCA and on Plaintiffs' Inducement Claims.. Document filed by Youtube, Inc., Youtube, LLC, Google, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 162 - 177, # 2 Exhibit 178 - 180, # 3 Exhibit 181 - 184, # 4 Exhibit 185, # 5 Exhibit 186 - 191, # 6 Exhibit 192 - 355)(Schapiro, Andrew)

Download PDF
Rubin Reply Exhibit 178 ) COM INTERNATIONAL INC., COMEDY PARTNERS, COUNTRY MUSIC TELEVISION, INC., PARAMOUNT PICTURES COPRORA nON, and BLACK ENTERTAINMENT TELEVISION LLC, VIA ) ) ) ) Case No. 1:07-CV-2103-LLS ) (Related Case NO.1 :07-cv-03582 (LLS)) ) Plaintiffs, v. YOUTUBE, INC., YOUTUBE, LLC, and GOOGLE INC., ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Defendants. ) ) PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO YOUTUBE'S THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO VIACOM INTERNATIONAL, INC. ET AL. Plaintiffs Viacom International Inc., Comedy Partners, Country Music Television, Inc., Paramount Pictures Corporation, and Black Entertainment Television, LLC, by their attorneys Jenner & Block LLP and Shearman & Sterling LLP, hereby object to and respond to YouTube's Third Set of Interrogatories to Viacom International, Inc. (Defendants' Third Set ofInterrogatories) as follows: GENERAL OBJECTIONS Plaintiffs make the following objections to specific Interrogatories by, among other things, incorporating by reference the following general objections ("General Objections"): 1 1. Plaintiffs object to the Third Set of Interrogatories in their entirety as exceeding the scope permissible under Local Rule 33.3(b), which states that interrogatories other than those seeking names of witnesses with relevant knowledge or information only if ordered by the court or if interrogatories are "a more practical method of obtaining the information sought than a request for production or a deposition." Defendants' interrogatory requests are unduly burdensome and duplicative of their document requests. 2. Plaintiffs object to the Third Set of Interrogatories in their entirety as exceeding, with subparts, the limit of twenty-five Interrogatories under the Court's Scheduling Order entered on August 9, 2007. Plaintiffs have already identified over 60,000 video clips that infringe its copyrights. Interrogatories 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 purport to request specific information about each of those thousands of infringing clips on a clipby-clip basis; Interrogatory 25 seeks detailed information about each of Defendants' 213 Requests for Admission. Defendants' interrogatories thus impermissibly exceed the twenty-five interrogatory limit. 3. Plaintiffs object to Defendants' definition of "Viacom," which includes entities listed in Paragraph 3 of the Definitions. Paragraph 3 makes up a voluminous, globespanning listing of Plaintiffs' partners, affliates, and subsidiaries. Defendants' inclusion of these entities is vexatious and improper. Plaintiffs further object to Defendants' definition of "Viacom" to the extent that it includes Plaintiffs' outside counsel, because searching for responsive information in the possession of Plaintiffs' outside counsel would be unduly burdensome. Plaintiffs further object to Defendants' inclusion of Viacom's "agents," "representatives," "any other person acting or purporting to act on (Viacom'sJ behalf," or 2 "any other person otherwise subject to its control" in their definition of Viacom because those terms and/or phrases are overbroad and vague. 4. Plaintiffs object to Defendants' Third Set ofInterrogatories to the extent that they seek to impose on Plaintiffs obligations or requirements beyond those imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Local Rules of the Southern District of New York. 5. Plaintiffs object to Defendants' Third Set of Interrogatories to the extent that they seek information or request documents that are known to Defendants, are a matter of public record, or otherwise publicly available. 6. In objecting to Defendants' Third Set of Interrogatories, Plaintiffs do not in any way waive or intend to waive but, rather, intend to preserve and are preserving: a. all objections as to competency, relevancy, materiality, privilege and admissibility of evidence for any purpose of any information or document, or the subject matter thereof, in the trial of this or any other action or subsequent proceedings; b. the right to object to the use of any information or document, or the subject matter thereof, in the trial of this or any other action or subsequent proceedings; c. the right to elicit appropriate evidence, beyond the responses themselves, regarding the subjects referred to in or in response to any request; d. the right to preserve the confidential or proprietary nature of any information or document, or the subject matter thereof, by mutual agreement or otherwise, as a condition of production; and e. the right at any time to correct, supplement, or clarify any of the objections. 3 7. Plaintiffs' objections to Defendants' Third Set of Interrogatories shall not constitute an admission of any statement or conclusion implied in any of Defendants' Interrogatories. RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO SPECIFIC INTERROGATORIES Subject to and without waiving any of the foregoing General Objections, which apply to each Interrogatory as if set forth fully below, Plaintiffs make the following specific responses and objections: INTERROGATORY NO. 11: For each instance in which You contend that Viacom requested access to use a Y ouTube Copyright Protection Service, but was denied such access, identify the Viacom entity that requested access, the date of the request, the name(s) of the specific Y ouTube Copyright Protection Service for which access was requested, and the production number (Bates number) of each document reflecting or evidencing the request and deniaL. Response and Objections to Interrogatory No. 11: Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing General Objections, and object further that this Interrogatory exceeds the scope permissible under Local Rule 33.3(b) because it is not "a more practical method of obtaining the information sought than a request for production or a deposition." Plaintiffs also object that this Interrogatory is overbroad, oppressive, harassing and unduly burdensome to the extent it seeks highly detailed information. Further, Plaintiffs object that this Interrogatory is premature and inconsistent with the Scheduling Order governing this case to the extent that it seeks information that will be identified at a later stage of the litigation and that is properly 4 subject to disclosure only when expert reports are exchanged or when a pretrial order is entered. In addition, Plaintiffs object that this Interrogatory because it seeks information produced in discovery. Such information is already equally and fully accessible to Defendants - indeed, Defendants should know when they denied Viacom access to Y ouTube Copyright Protection Services without having to ask Viacom - and it is unduly burdensome to require Plaintiffs to review documents and information to identify particular information for Defendants. Subject to and without waiver of these general and specific objections, Plaintiffs provide the following examples of instances where Defendants denied Viacom access to Y ouTube Copyrght Protection Services. Although these examples are not necessarily an exhaustive list of every instance in which Viacom requested but was denied access to a Y ouTube Copyright Protection Service, they ilustrate the point. On February 2, 2007, Viacom General Counsel Michael D. Fricklas sent a letter to David Drummond and Kent Walker requesting that Defendants take a number of measures to prevent rampant copyright infringement on the site and specifically stated that Viacom was "interested in working with (Defendants J" as Defendants began to use Audible Magic. (VIA01475465-VIA01475476.) On February 16, 2007, Mr. Walker refused on behalf of Defendants to allow the use of Audible Magic to protect Viacom's copyrghts (VIA01974134-VIA01974136). In addition, Dean Garfield testified that Y ouTube generally refused to provide its copyright protection services to companies without partnership agreements: "(IJt became clear that Google/Y ouTube was willing to filter for those who had a licensing relationship with Google/Y ouTube and not for those who did not." (D. Garfield Tr. Nov. 2,2009 at 55:10-13.) INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Describe each policy adopted by a Viacom UGC Site addressing termination of the accounts of users who are "repeat infringers" (as that phrase is used in 17 U.S.C. 512(i)), identifying in the description the Viacom UGC Site that adopted the policy, the dates during which the policy was in effect, and the number of users terminated pursuant to the policy. Response and Objections to Interrogatory No. 12: Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing General Objections, and object further that this Interrogatory exceeds the scope permissible under Local Rule 33.3(b) because it is not "a more practical method of obtaining the information sought than a request for production or a deposition." Plaintiffs also object that this Interrogatory is overbroad, oppressive, harassing and unduly burdensome to the extent it seeks highly detailed information. In addition, Plaintiffs object that this Interrogatory because it seeks information contained in documents produced in discovery. Such information is already equally and fully accessible to Defendants, and it is unduly burdensome to require Plaintiffs to review the documents to identify particular information for Defendants. Subject to and without waiver of these general and specific objections, Plaintiffs respond as follows: Plaintiffs have produced numerous Terms of Use documents in discovery. See Attachment A, Documents Responsive to Interrogatory 12. Those documents contain information responsive to this Interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 13: If You stil contend, as alleged, that "YouTube prevents copyright owners from finding on the YouTube site all of the infringing works from which YouTube profits," identify each fact, each document, and each portion of a witness' testimony that supports this contention. Response and Objections to Interrogatory No. 13: Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing General Objections, and object further that this Interrogatory is improper, overly broad, unduly burdensome, unreasonably cumulative, abusive, and exceeds the scope of permissible discovery under Local Civil Rule 33.3 and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 33. In particular, an interrogatory that seeks identification of each fact supporting a contention is improper, abusive and goes beyond the scope permitted by the Rules. It is oppressive, harassing and unduly burdensome to ask Plaintiffs to parse the milions of documents and hundreds of depositions in this case to specify each fact, each document and each piece of testimony supporting Plaintiffs' claims, especially where that information is equally available to Defendants. Further, Plaintiffs object that this Interrogatory is premature and inconsistent with the Scheduling Order governing this case to the extent that it seeks information that wil be identified at a later stage of the litigation and that is properly subject to disclosure only when expert reports are exchanged or when a pretrial order is entered. In addition, Plaintiffs object that this Interrogatory attempts to elicit trial or litigation strategy or infonnation otherwise protected by the attorney work product doctrine. Subject to and without waiver of these general and specific objections, Plaintiffs respond as follows: numerous documents produced by the parties in this action, numerous facts contained therein, and numerous pieces of testimony elicited during discovery support the quoted contention, and all of this evidence is already equally and fully accessible to Defendants. Based on the foregoing objections, no further response is required. INTERROGATORY NO. 14: If You assert a claim of copyright infringement for any Accused Clip, that you contend does not arise "by reason of the storage at the direction of a user" (as that phrase is used in 17 V.S.c. 512(c)), identify separately for each such Accused Clip each fact, each document, and each portion of a witness' testimony that supports this contention. Response and Objections to Interrogatory No. 14: Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing General Objections, and object further that this Interrogatory is improper, overly broad, unduly burdensome, unreasonably cumulative, abusive, and exceeds the scope of permissible discovery under Local Civil Rule 33.3 and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 33. In particular, an interrogatory that seeks identification of each fact supporting a contention is improper, abusive and goes beyond the scope pennitted by the Rules. It is oppressive, harassing and unduly burdensome to ask Plaintiffs to parse the milions of documents and hundreds of depositions in this case to specify each fact, each document and each piece of testimony supporting Plaintiffs' claims, especially where that information is equally available to Defendants. Further, Plaintiffs object that this Interrogatory is premature and inconsistent with the Scheduling Order governing this case to the extent that it seeks information that will be identified at a later stage of the litigation and that is properly subject to disclosure only when expert reports are exchanged or when a pretrial order is entered. In addition, Plaintiffs object that this Interrogatory attempts to elicit trial or litigation strategy or information otherwise protected by the attorney work product doctrine. Finally, Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory as complex and compound and as exceeding the limit of 25 Interrogatories under the Court's Scheduling Order in that it seeks separate and detailed information about each of the over 60,000 Accused Clips and thereby effectively seeks thousands of separate responses. Subject to and without waiver of these general and specific objections, Plaintiffs respond as follows: numerous documents produced by the parties in this action, numerous facts contained therein, and numerous pieces of testimony elicited during discovery support the quoted contention, and all of this evidence is already equally and fully accessible to Defendants. Based on the foregoing objections, no further response is required. INTERROGATORY NO. 15: For each Accused Clip, if You contend that, before Y ouTube received a DMCA Takedown Notice for the Accused Clip, YouTube had "actual knowledge" (as that phrase is used in 17 V.S.c. 512(c)(I)) that the Accused Clip infringed Y our copyright or that Y ouTube was "aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity (was) apparent" as (as that phrase is used in 17 V.S.C. 512(c)(I)), identify separately for each such Accused Clip each fact, each document, and each portion of a witness' testimony that supports this contention. Response and Objections to Interrogatory No. 15: Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing General Objections, and object further that this Interrogatory is improper, overly broad, unduly burdensome, unreasonably cumulative, abusive, and exceeds the scope of permissible discovery under Local Civil Rule 33.3 and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 33. In particular, an interrogatory that seeks identification of each fact supporting a contention is improper, abusive and goes beyond the scope permitted by the Rules. It is oppressive, harassing and unduly burdensome to ask Plaintiffs to parse the millions of documents and hundreds of depositions in this case to specify each fact, each document and each piece of testimony supporting Plaintiffs' claims, especially where that information is equally available to Defendants. Further, Plaintiffs object that this Interrogatory is premature and inconsistent with the Scheduling Order governing this case to the extent that it seeks information that wil be identified at a later stage of the litigation and that is properly subject to disclosure only when expert reports are exchanged or when a pretrial order is entered. In addition, Plaintiffs object that this Interrogatory attempts to elicit trial or litigation strategy or information otherwise protected by the attorney work product doctrine. Finally, Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory as complex and compound and as exceeding the limit of 25 Interrogatories under the Court's Scheduling Order in that it seeks separate and detailed information about each of the over 60,000 Accused Clips and thereby effectively seeks thousands of separate responses. Subject to and without waiver of these general and specific objections, Plaintiffs respond as follows: numerous documents produced by the parties in this action, numerous facts contained therein, and numerous pieces of testimony elicited during discovery support the quoted contention, and all of this evidence is already equally and fully accessible to Defendants. Based on the foregoing objections, no further response is required. INTERROGATORY NO. 16: For each Accused Clip, if You contend that You Tube failed to act "expeditiously to remove, or disable access to," (as that phrase is used in 17 V.S.c. 512(c)(l)) the Accused Clip after receiving actual knowledge or becoming aware of facts or circumstances from which it was apparent that the Accused Clip infringed a Work In Suit, or after receiving a DMCA Takedown Notice relating to the Accused Clip, identify separately for each such Accused Clip each fact, each document, and each portion of a witness' testimony that supports this contention. Response and Objections to Interrogatory No. 16: Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing General Objections, and object further that this Interrogatory is improper, overly broad, unduly burdensome, unreasonably cumulative, abusive, and exceeds the scope of permissible discovery under Local Civil Rule 33.3 and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 33. In particular, an interrogatory that seeks identification of each fact supporting a contention is improper, abusive and goes beyond the scope permitted by the Rules. It is oppressive, harassing and unduly burdensome to ask Plaintiffs to parse the millions of documents and hundreds of depositions in this case to specify each fact, each document and each piece of testimony supporting Plaintiffs' claims, especially where that information is equally available to Defendants. Further, Plaintiffs object that this Interrogatory is premature and inconsistent with the Scheduling Order governing this case to the extent that it seeks information that will be identified at a later stage of the litigation and that is properly subject to disclosure only when expert reports are exchanged or when a pretrial order is entered. In addition, Plaintiffs object that this Interrogatory attempts to elicit trial or litigation strategy or information otherwise protected by the attorney work product doctrine. Finally, Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory as complex and compound and as exceeding the limit of 25 Interrogatories under the Court's Scheduling Order in that it seeks separate and detailed information about each of the over 60,000 Accused Clips and thereby effectively seeks thousands of separate responses. Subject to and without waiver of these general and specific objections, Plaintiffs respond as follows: numerous documents produced by the parties in this action, numerous facts contained therein, and numerous pieces of testimony elicited during discovery support the quoted contention, and all of this evidence is already equally and fully accessible to Defendants. Based on the foregoing objections, no further response is required. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: For each Accused Clip, if You contend that Y ouTube received a "financial benefit directly attributable to" (as that phrase is used in 17 V.S.C. 512(c)(I)(B)) the Accused Clip, identify separately for each such Accused Clip the amount of the financial benefit, and each fact, each document, and each portion of a witness' testimony that supports this contention. Response and Objections to Interrogatory No. 17: Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing General Objections, and object further that this Interrogatory is improper, overly broad, unduly burdensome, unreasonably cumulative, abusive, and exceeds the scope of permissible discovery under Local Civil Rule 33.3 and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 33. In particular, an interrogatory that seeks identification of each fact supporting a contention is improper, abusive and goes beyond the scope permitted by the Rules. It is oppressive, harassing and unduly burdensome to ask Plaintiffs to parse the milions of documents and hundreds of depositions in this case to specify each fact, each document and each piece of testimony supporting Plaintiffs' claims, especially where that information is equally available to Defendants. Further, Plaintiffs object that this Interrogatory is premature and inconsistent with the Scheduling Order governing this case to the extent that it seeks information that wil be identified at a later stage of the litigation and that is properly subject to disclosure only when expert reports are exchanged or when a pretrial order is entered. In addition, Plaintiffs object that this Interrogatory attempts to elicit trial or litigation strategy or information otherwise protected by the attorney work product doctrine. Finally, Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory as complex and compound and as exceeding the limit of 25 Interrogatories under the Court's Scheduling Order in that it seeks separate and detailed information about each of the over 60,000 Accused Clips and thereby effectively seeks thousands of separate responses. Subject to and without waiver of these general and specific objections, Plaintiffs respond as follows: numerous documents produced by the parties in this action, numerous facts contained therein, and numerous pieces of testimony elicited during discovery support the quoted contention, and all of this evidence is already equally and fully accessible to Defendants. Based on the foregoing objections, no further response is required. INTERROGATORY NO. 18: For each Accused Clip, if You contend that Y ouTube had "the right and abilty to control" (as that phrase is used in 17 V.S.C. 512(c)(I)(B)) the allegedly infringing activity with respect to that Accused Clip, identify separately for each such Accused Clip each fact, each document, and each portion of a witness' testimony that supports this contention. Response and Objections to Interrogatory No. 18: Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing General Objections, and object further that this Interrogatory is improper, overly broad, unduly burdensome, unreasonably cumulative, abusive, and exceeds the scope of permissible discovery under Local Civil Rule 33.3 and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 33. In particular, an interrogatory that seeks identification of each fact supporting a contention is improper, abusive and goes beyond the scope permitted by the Rules. It is oppressive, harassing and unduly burdensome to ask Plaintiffs to parse the millions of documents and hundreds of depositions in this case to specify each fact, each document and each piece of testimony supporting Plaintiffs' claims, especially where that information is equally available to Defendants. Further, Plaintiffs object that this Interrogatory is premature and inconsistent with the Scheduling Order governing this case to the extent that it seeks information that wil be identified at a later stage of the litigation and that is properly subject to disclosure only when expert reports are exchanged or when a pretrial order is entered. In addition, Plaintiffs object that this Interrogatory attempts to elicit trial or litigation strategy or information otherwise protected by the attorney work product doctrine. Finally, Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory as complex and compound and as exceeding the limit of 25 Interrogatories under the Court's Scheduling Order in that it seeks separate and detailed information about each of the over 60,000 Accused Clips and thereby effectively seeks thousands of separate responses. Subject to and without waiver of these general and specific objections, Plaintiffs respond as follows: numerous documents produced by the parties in this action, numerous facts contained therein, and numerous pieces of testimony elicited during discovery support the quoted contention, and all of this evidence is already equally and fully accessible to Defendants. Based on the foregoing objections, no further response is required. INTERROGATORY NO. 19: For each Accused Clip, if You contend that the Accused Clip was uploaded to the Y ouTube website by a user who had no authorization, right, or license to do so, identify separately for each such Accused Clip each fact, each document, and each portion of a witness' testimony that supports this contention. Response and Objections to Interrogatory No. 19: Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing General Objections, and object further that this Interrogatory is improper, overly broad, unduly burdensome, unreasonably cumulative, abusive, and exceeds the scope of permissible discovery under Local Civil Rule 33.3 and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 33. In particular, an interrogatory that seeks identification of each fact supporting a contention is improper, abusive and goes beyond the scope permitted by the Rules. It is oppressive, harassing and unduly burdensome to ask Plaintiffs to parse the milions of documents and hundreds of depositions in this case to specify each fact, each document and each piece of testimony supporting Plaintiffs' claims, especially where that information is equally available to Defendants. Further, Plaintiffs object that this Interrogatory is premature and inconsistent with the Scheduling Order governing this case to the extent that it seeks information that wil be identified at a later stage of the litigation and that is properly subject to disclosure only when expert reports are exchanged or when a pretrial order is entered. In addition, Plaintiffs object that this Interrogatory attempts to elicit trial or litigation strategy or information otherwise protected by the attorney work product doctrine. Finally, Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory as complex and compound and as exceeding the limit of 25 Interrogatories under the Court's Scheduling Order in that it seeks separate and detailed information about each of the over 60,000 Accused Clips and thereby effectively seeks thousands of separate responses. Subject to and without waiver of these general and specific objections, Plaintiffs respond as follows: numerous documents produced by the parties in this action, numerous facts contained therein, and numerous pieces of testimony elicited during discovery support the quoted contention, and all of this evidence is already equally and fully accessible to Defendants. Based on the foregoing objections, no further response is required. INTERROGATORY NO. 20: For each Accused Clip, if You stil contend, as alleged, that Y ouTube "enable(d), induce(d), faciltate (d), and materially contribute (d) to each act of infringement by Y ouTube users" with respect to the Accused Clip, identify separately for each such Accused Clip each fact, each document, and each portion of a witness' testimony that supports this contention. Response and Objections to Interrogatory No. 20: Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing General Objections, and object further that this Interrogatory is improper, overly broad, unduly burdensome, unreasonably cumulative, abusive, and exceeds the scope of permissible discovery under Local Civil Rule 33.3 and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 33. In particular, an interrogatory that seeks identification of each fact supporting a contention is improper, abusive and goes beyond the scope permitted by the Rules. It is oppressive, harassing and unduly burdensome to ask Plaintiffs to parse the milions of documents and hundreds of depositions in this case to specify each fact, each document and each piece of testimony supporting Plaintiffs' claims, especially where that information is equally available to Defendants. Further, Plaintiffs object that this Interrogatory is premature and inconsistent with the Scheduling Order governing this case to the extent that it seeks information that wil be identified at a later stage of the litigation and that is properly subject to disclosure only when expert reports are exchanged or when a pretrial order is entered. In addition, Plaintiffs object that this Interrogatory attempts to elicit trial or litigation strategy or information otherwise protected by the attorney work product doctrine. Finally, Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory as complex and compound and as exceeding the limit of 25 Interrogatories under the Court's Scheduling Order in that it seeks separate and detailed infonnation about each of the over 60,000 Accused Clips and thereby effectively seeks thousands of separate responses. Subject to and without waiver of these general and specific objections, Plaintiffs respond as follows: numerous documents produced by the parties in this action, numerous facts contained therein, and numerous pieces of testimony elicited during discovery support the quoted contention, and all of this evidence is already equally and fully accessible to Defendants. Based on the foregoing objections, no further response is required. INTERROGATORY NO. 21: For each Accused Clip, if You stil contend, as alleged, that YouTube's actions were "wilful, intentional, and purposeful, in disregard of and indifferent to (Your) rights" with respect to infringing activity associated with the Accused Clip, identify separately for each such Accused Clip each fact, each document, and each portion of a witness' testimony that supports this contention. Response and Objections to Interrogatory No. 21: Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing General Objections, and object further that this Interrogatory is improper, overly broad, unduly burdensome, unreasonably cumulative, abusive, and exceeds the scope of permissible discovery under Local Civil Rule 33.3 and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 33. In particular, an interrogatory that seeks identification of each fact supporting a contention is improper, abusive and goes beyond the scope permitted by the Rules. It is oppressive, harassing and unduly burdensome to ask Plaintiffs to parse the milions of documents and hundreds of depositions in this case to specify each fact, each document and each piece of testimony supporting Plaintiffs' claims, especially where that information is equally available to Defendants. Further, Plaintiffs object that this Interrogatory is premature and inconsistent with the Scheduling Order governing this case to the extent that it seeks information that will be identified at a later stage of the litigation and that is properly subject to disclosure only when expert reports are exchanged or when a pretrial order is entered. In addition, Plaintiffs object that this Interrogatory attempts to elicit trial or litigation strategy or information otherwise protected by the attorney work product doctrine. Finally, Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory as complex and compound and as exceeding the limit of 25 Interrogatories under the Court's Scheduling Order in that it seeks separate and detailed information about each of the over 60,000 Accused Clips and thereby effectively seeks thousands of separate responses. Subject to and without waiver of these general and specific objections, Plaintiffs respond as follows: numerous documents produced by the parties in this action, numerous facts contained therein, and numerous pieces of testimony elicited during discovery support the quoted contention, and all of this evidence is already equally and fully accessible to Defendants. Based on the foregoing objections, no further response is required. INTERROGATORY NO. 22: If you stil contend, as alleged, that You have incurred actual damages directly caused by Y ouTube, identify the specifc total amount of actual damages that You have incurred, describe in detail the legal theory upon which You would seek to recover these actual damages and each calculation You used to calculate these actual damages, and identify each fact, each document, and each portion of a witness' testimony that supports this contention. Response and Objections to Interrogatory No. 22: Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing General Objections, and object further that this Interrogatory is improper, overly broad, unduly burdensome, unreasonably cumulative, abusive, and exceeds the scope of permissible discovery under Local Civil Rule 33.3 and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 33. Further, Plaintiffs object that the determination, specification, and quantification of actual damages are matters properly subject to expert analysis and discovery in this case. This Interrogatory is thus premature and inconsistent with the Scheduling Order governing this case in that it seeks information that is properly subject to disclosure only when expert reports are exchanged. In addition, Plaintiffs object that this Interrogatory attempts to elicit trial or litigation strategy or information otherwise protected by the attorney work product doctrine. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiffs respond as follows: Plaintiffs have incurred significant actual damages due to Defendants' unauthorized infringement, including, without limitation, lost licensing revenues payable by Defendants and lost advertising, syndication, and other distribution revenues payable by third parties. INTERROGATORY NO. 23: Identify each Work In Suit uploaded in whole or in part to the YouTube website by Viacom or with Viacom's authorization and the date of each such authorized upload. Response and Objections to Interrogatory No. 23: Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing General Objections, and object further that this Interrogatory is improper, overly broad, and exceeds the scope of permissible discovery under Local Civil Rule 33.3 and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 33. In particular, Plaintiffs object to Defendants' definition of "Works in Suit" as encompassing "all works ... as to which (Plaintiffs J have asserted claims of copyrght infringement, at any time, in this action" and as encompassing portions of works as to which Plaintiffs have not asserted claims of copyright infringement in this action. This definition is facially overbroad and purports to cover content that is irrelevant to this copyright infringement action. Plaintiffs accordingly shall construe "Works in Suit" to encompass solely those clips listed on the Amended Production of Works in Suit produced to Defendants on October 15,2009. Subject to that definition and subject to and without waiver ofthese general and specific objections, Plaintiffs respond as follows: Plaintiffs uploaded none of the Works in Suit, and Plaintiffs authorized the upload of none of the Works in Suit. INTERROGATORY NO. 24: Identify each Work In Suit that Viacom has provided as a reference fie to any third party for purposes of creating a digital fingerprint of the work to identify copies of the work on the Internet, the third parties to whom each reference fie was provided, and the dates on which it was provided to those third parties. Response and Objections to Interrogatory No. 24: Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing General Objections, and object further that this Interrogatory is improper, overly broad, and exceeds the scope of permissible discovery under Local Civil Rule 33.3 and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 33. In particular, Plaintiffs object that this Interrogatory is overbroad, oppressive, harassing and unduly burdensome to the extent it seeks highly detailed information. Plaintiffs also object that this Interrogatory is unduly burdensome insofar as it seeks information from time periods for which such records are not reasonably available to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs further object to this interrogatory insofar as it calls for Plaintiffs to identify works supplied to Auditude and to Y ouTube as reference files for fingerprinting purposes. Defendants have already sought and obtained such records from Auditude in this litigation, and information concerning works Plaintiffs have supplied to Y ouTube is equally in Defendants' own possession. Plaintiffs further object to Defendants' definition of "Works in Suit" as encompassing "all works ... as to which (Plaintiffs J have asserted claims of copyright infringement, at any time, in this action" and as encompassing portions of works as to which Plaintiffs have not asserted claims of copyrght infrngement in this action. This definition is facially overbroad and purports to cover content that is irrelevant to this copyright infringement action. Plaintiffs accordingly shall construe "Works in Suit" to encompass solely those clips listed on the Amended Production of Works in Suit produced to Defendants on October 15, 2009. Subject to that definition and subject to and without waiver of these general and specific objections, and based upon information available to Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs respond as follows: Plaintiffs' current records of works Plaintiffs have provided to Audible Magic, Auditude, BayTSP, and YouTube for purposes of creating a digital fingerprint of the work to identify copies of the work on the Internet, and the dates on which they were provided to Audible Magic, Auditude, BayTSP, and Y ouTube, are reflected within the document attached hereto as Attachment B. The document attached hereto as Attachment C also lists the same information for additional works provided to Audible Magic and Auditude as DVDs and not reflected in Attachment B. Plaintiffs object that it would be unduly burdensome to require Plaintiffs to search these exhibits for the "Works in Suit," as such infonnation is equally available to Defendants from the documents. The document attached hereto as Attachment D lists additional Works in Suit that Plaintiff Paramount supplied, as DVDs, to BayTSP on December 29,2006 and to Audible Magic on May 8,2007. In addition to the works listed on the aforementioned exhibits, Plaintiffs have also directly generated fingerprints of their works and supplied those fingerprints to Vobile, Y ouTube, BayTSP, and Audible Magic for purposes of identifying copies of those works on the Internet. Plaintiffs have also provided Auditude and Audible Magic with MRSS feeds directing them to content available on Plaintiffs' web sites so that Auditude and Audible Magic can generate fingerprints thereof. Plaintiffs are not providing information concerning such in-house fingerprinting, or such MRSS feeds, in response to this Interrogatory, as the Interrogatory requests identification only of instances in which Plaintiffs have provided a "Work In Suit. . . as a reference file" and not identification of instances in which Plaintiffs have used alternative means for providing third-party vendors with fingerprints of Plaintiffs' works. INTERROGATORY NO. 25: If any of Your responses to a request for admission in this action is not an unqualified admission, identify the request for admission and each fact, each document, and each portion of a witness' testimony that supports this contention. Response and Objections to Interrogatory No. 25: Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing General Objections, and object further that this Interrogatory is improper, overly broad, unduly burdensome, unreasonably cumulative, abusive, and exceeds the scope of permissible discovery under Local Civil Rule 33.3 and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 33. In particular, an interrogatory that seeks identification of each fact supporting a contention is improper, abusive and goes beyond the scope permitted by the Rules. It is oppressive, harassing and unduly burdensome to ask Plaintiffs to parse the millions of documents and hundreds of depositions in this case to specify each fact, each document and each piece of testimony supporting Plaintiffs' responses to Defendants' requests for admission, especially where that information is equally available to Defendants. Further, Plaintiffs object that this Interrogatory is premature and inconsistent with the Scheduling Order governing this case to the extent that it seeks information that wil be identified at a later stage of the litigation and that is properly subject to disclosure only when expert reports are exchanged or when a pretrial order is entered. In addition, Plaintiffs object that this Interrogatory attempts to elicit trial or litigation strategy or information otherwise protected by the attorney work product doctrine. Finally, Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory as complex and compound and as exceeding the limit of 25 Interrogatories under the Court's Scheduling Order in that it seeks separate and detailed information about each of Plaintiffs' responses to Defendants' 213 Requests for Admission and thereby effectively seeks hundreds of separate responses. Subject to and without waiver of these general and specific objections, Plaintiffs respond as follows: numerous documents produced by the parties in this action, numerous facts contained therein, and numerous pieces of testimony elicited during discovery support Plaintiffs' responses to Defendants' 213 Requests for Admission, and all of this evidence is already equally and fully accessible to Defendants. Based on the foregoing objections, no further response is required. Respectfully submitted, January 8,2010 -' lA/) j( "'\1. ZtJ; J /) ! (/"j . (J,.".,/:Jt C Susan J. Kohlmann (SK-1855) JENNER & BLOCK LLP 919 Third Avenue 37th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 891-1600 Facsimile: (212) 891-1699 Wiliam M. Hohengarten (WH-5233) Michael B. DeSanctis (MD-5737) Scott B. Wilkens (pro hac vice) JENNER & BLOCK LLP 1099 New York Avenue, N.W. Suite 900 Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 639-6000 Facsimile: (202) 639-6066 Stuart J. Baskin (SB-9936) Stephen Fishbein (SF-34l0) John Gueli (JG-8427) SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP 599 Lexington Avenue New York, New York 10022 Telephone: (212) 848-4000 Facsimile: (212) 848-7179 vii:RU'ICATION J;'ORlLAINTIFFS VIA COM INTERNATIONAL INC., ET AL. Information Plaintiffs' Responses to Defendants' Third of Interrogatories was provided by me andiol: at my direction from corporate records and personneL. I revievved the responses. I declare under penalty of perjury under the la\:vs of the United States that the foregoing responses as to Plaintiffs Viacom International et a1. are true and correct to the best of iny knowledge and belief: based on my revievi of such information. Executed on January 8,2010, in Nevv York, New York. Signature: Name: Stanley Pierre-Louis Vice President & Associate General Counsel CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served on this day of January, 2010, on Defendants' counsel by electronic mail pursuant to an agreement of the parties under Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(D). \-\" /""~\ ,/, _L/' . f'_~.J //7 i ,I (:~-"__--_-\~___,,___o ",. ,,",_~,.". James C. Cox :~ /j Rubin Reply Exhibit 179 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK VIACOM INTERNATIONAL INC., COMEDY PARTNERS, COUNTRY MUSIC TELEVISION, INC., PARAMOUNT PICTURES COPRORATION, and BLACK ENTERTAINMENT TELEVISION LLC, ) ) ) ) ) Case No. l:07-CV-2l03-LLS ) (Related Case NO.1 :07-cv-03582 (LLS)) ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. YOUTUBE, INC., YOUTUBE, LLC, and GOOGLE INC., ) ) ) ) ) Defendants. ) ) PLAINTIFFS' CONFIDENTIAL SUPPLEMENTAL AND AMENDED OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO CERTAIN OF YOUTUBE'S INTERROGATORIES TO VIACOM INTERNATIONAL, INC. ET AL. Plaintiffs Viacom International, Inc., Comedy Partners, Country Music Television, Inc., Paramount Pictures Corporation, and Black Entertainment Television, LLC, by their attorneys Jenner & Block LLP and Shearman & Sterling LLP, hereby supplement and amend their Objections and Responses to the following interrogatories from YouTube's First Set of Interrogatories to Viacom International, Inc. (YouTube's First Set of Interrogatories), Y ouTube' s Second Set of Interrogatories to Viacom International, Inc. (YouTube's Second Set of Interrogatories), and YouTube's Third Set ofInterrogatories to Viacom International, Inc. (Y ouTube' s Third Set ofInterrogatories), as follows: 1 CONFIDENTIAL GENERAL OBJECTIONS Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the General Objections set forth in their October 1, 2007 Objections and Responses to YouTube's First Set of Interrogatories to Viacom International, Inc.; their September 8, 2008 Objections and Responses to YouTube's Second Set of Interrogatories; and their January 8, 2010 Objections and Responses to YouTube's Third Set ofInterrogatories. SUPPLEMENTAL AND AMENDED RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO SPECIFIC INTERROGATORIES Subject to and without waiving any of the foregoing General Objections and the specific objections to each Interrogatory set forth in their January 8, 2010 Amended Objections and Responses to Y ouTube' s First Set of Interrogatories, their January 8, 2010 Amended Objections and Responses to YouTube's Second Set of Interrogatories, or their January 8, 2010 Objections and Responses to YouTube's Third Set of Interrogatories, Plaintiffs provide the following specific supplemental or amended responses and objections: INTERROGATORY NO.2: For each work in suit, describe in detail the basis for Your claim of copyright ownership, including an identification of all evidence on which you base your claim of ownership. Supplemental Response and Objections to Interrogatory No.2: Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing General Objections, and object further that this Interrogatory is improper, overly broad, unduly burdensome, unreasonably cumulative, abusive, and exceeds the scope of permissible discovery under Local Civil 2 CONFIDENTIAL Rule 33.3 and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 33. It is oppressive, harassing and unduly burdensome to ask Plaintiffs to identify and describe in detail the basis for ownership claims for each work in suit, especially where that information has been produced in discovery and therefore is equally available to Defendants. Plaintiffs further object that Interrogatory 2 is duplicative of Defendants' document requests, including but not limited to Document Requests 1, 3, and 125. Seeking additional information by interrogatory is redundant, unduly burdensome, and inconsistent with the Scheduling Order and the Local Rule. Subject to and without waiver of these general and specific objections, Plaintiffs supplement their prior response as follows: Attachment A - Supplemental, attached hereto, identifies by Bates Number additional documents that Viacom has produced in discovery that provide information responsive to this Interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO.5: For each work in suit, describe in detail the circumstances under which You first became aware of the alleged infringement of those works on or through the YouTube service. Your answer should include, but not be limited to, providing the date and manner in which the alleged infringement came to your attention. Supplemental Response and Objections to Interrogatory No.5: Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing General Objections, and object further that this Interrogatory is improper, overly broad, unduly burdensome, unreasonably cumulative, abusive, and exceeds the scope of permissible discovery under Local Civil Rule 33.3 and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 33. Plaintiffs further object that Interrogatory 5 is duplicative of Defendants' document requests, including Document 3 CONFIDENTIAL Request No. 25. Seeking additional information by interrogatory is redundant, unduly burdensome, and inconsistent with the Scheduling Order and the Local Rule. Subject to and without waiver of these general and specific objections, Plaintiffs supplement their prior response as follows: Plaintiffs' January 10, 2010 Amended Objections and Responses to YouTube's First Set of Interrogatories included a chart listing the date that BayTSP recorded detection of the earliest infringing clip for each Work in Suit. Attachment B - Supplemental, attached hereto, amends the dates previously listed for two Works in Suit. INTERROGATORY NO.8: For each Accused Video Clip, state whether the same content is available for viewing on a website operated by You or pursuant to a license agreement with You, and if so, identify the website and state when the clip first became available on that site. Supplemental Response and Objections to Interrogatory No.8: Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing General Objections, and object further that this Interrogatory is improper, overly broad, unduly burdensome, unreasonably cumulative, abusive, and exceeds the scope of permissible discovery under Local Civil Rule 33.3 and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 33. Plaintiffs also object that this Interrogatory is overbroad, oppressive, harassing and unduly burdensome to the extent it seeks highly detailed infonnation. In addition, Plaintiffs object to the extent this Interrogatory seeks information contained in documents produced in discovery. Such information is already equally and fully accessible to Defendants, and it is unduly burdensome to require Plaintiffs to review the documents to identify particular 4 CONFIDENTIAL information for Defendants. Plaintiffs object further that this Interrogatory is vague. Plaintiffs further object that Interrogatory 8 is duplicative of Defendants' document requests. Seeking additional information by interrogatory is redundant, unduly burdensome, and inconsisten't with the Scheduling Order and the Local Rule. Subject to and without waiver of these general and specific objections, Plaintiffs supplement their prior response as follows: Availability of Via com Content on Viacom Websites As a general matter under present practices, Paramount Pictures does not make full motion pictures available for free viewing on line on Viacom websites. Trailers from Paramount Pictures films generally are made available shortly before the film's theatrical release. At least some of those trailers typically remain on line until after the film's DVD release. As a general matter under present practices, Black Entertainment Television makes clips from some shows available on line after their broadcast premieres. The content remains available for approximately one year. Among the Works In Suit, Black Entertainment Television made clips from the following shows available at www.bet.com: College Hil, Episode 406 College Hil, Episode 408 BET Awards, 2006 BET Awards, 2007 BET Hip Hop Awards, 2006 Celebration of Gospel, 2007 Top 25: Hottest Couples Top 25: Money, Power, Respect 5 CONFIDENTIAL Availability of Via com Content on Third Party Websites Attached hereto as Attachment C - Supplemental is a spreadsheet listing Paramount Pictures content made available for viewing on third party websites, as well as the date when each piece of content was first made available on those sites. Attached hereto as Attachment D - Supplemental is a spreadsheet listing Black Entertainment Television content made available for viewing on third party websites, as well as the date when each piece of content was first made available on those sites. INTERROGATORY NO. 23: Identify each Work In Suit uploaded in whole or in part to the YouTube website by Viacom or with Viacom's authorization and the date of each such authorized upload. Supplemental Response and Objections to Interrogatory No. 23: Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing General Objections, and object further that this Interrogatory is improper, overly broad, and exceeds the scope of permissible discovery under Local Civil Rule 33.3 and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 33. In particular, Plaintiffs object to Defendants' definition of "Works in Suit" as encompassing "all works ... as to which (Plaintiffs) have asserted claims of copyright infringement, at any time, in this action" and as encompassing portions of works as to which Plaintiffs have not asserted claims of copyright infringement in this action. This definition is facially overbroad and purports to cover content that is irrelevant to this copyright infrngement action. Plaintiffs further object that Interrogatory 23 is unduly burdensome, as the relevant information has been produced in discovery and is therefore equally available to Defendants. 6 CONFIDENTIAL Subject to and without waiver of these general and specific objections, Plaintiffs supplement their prior response as follows: Attached hereto as Attachment E Supplemental is a chart identifying by Bates number documents produced by Viacom in discovery that contain information responsive to this Interrogatory. This interrogatory response does not include documents and other data produced by Defendants and by third parties subpoenaed by Defendants. INTERROGATORY NO. 24: Identify each Work In Suit that Viacom has provided as a reference fie to any third party for purposes of creating a digital fingerprint of the work to identify copies of the work on the Internet, the third parties to whom each reference fie was provided, and the dates on which it was provided to those third parties. Amended Response and Objections to Interrogatory No. 24: Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing General Objections, and object further that this Interrogatory is improper, overly broad, and exceeds the scope of permissible discovery under Local Civil Rule 33.3 and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 33. In particular, Plaintiffs object that this Interrogatory is overbroad, oppressive, harassing and unduly burdensome to the extent it seeks highly detailed information. Plaintiffs also object that this Interrogatory is unduly burdensome, and seeks information in the possession of third parties, insofar as it seeks information from time periods for which such records are not reasonably available to Plaintiffs, and for which Plaintiffs must obtain records from third parties. Plaintiffs further object to this Interrogatory insofar as it calls for Plaintiffs to identify works supplied to Auditude and to Y ouTube as reference fies for fingerprinting purposes. Defendants have already sought and obtained such 7 CONFIDENTIAL records from Auditude in this litigation, and information concerning works Plaintiffs have supplied to Y ouTube is equally in Defendants' own possession. Plaintiffs further object to Defendants' definition of "Works in Suit" as encompassing "all works ... as to which (Plaintiffs) have asserted claims of copyright infringement, at any time, in this action" and as encompassing portions of works as to which Plaintiffs have not asserted claims of copyright infringement in this action. This definition is facially overbroad and purports to cover content that is irrelevant to this copyright infrngement action. Plaintiffs accordingly shall construe "Works in Suit" to encompass solely those clips listed on the Amended Production of Works in Suit produced to Defendants on October 15,2009, as modified by Plaintiffs' February 26,2010 Notice of DismissaL. Subject to that definition and subject to and without waiver of these general and specific objections, and based upon information available to Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs respond as follows: Attached hereto as Attachment F - Supplemental is a chart listing - to the best of Plaintiffs' ability given available records - each Work in Suit and the date on which Plaintiffs provided Audible Magic, Auditude, and Y ouTube with either the work, or access to the work, for purposes of creating a digital fingerprint of the work to identify copies of the work on the Internet. In addition, for works in suit belonging to Plaintiff Paramount, Attachment F - Supplemental lists the date on which Paramount provided the work, or access to the work, to BayTSP for purposes of creating a digital fingerprint of the work to identify copies of the work on the Internet. Plaintiffs other than Paramount have not engaged BayTSP for such purpose, and Attachment F - Supplemental therefore omits as irrelevant any BayTSP fingerprinting of non-Paramount works. 8 CONFIDENTIAL In addition, Defendants' February 3, 2010 Letter concerning Defendants' 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice to Viacom sought information regarding the works, other than the Works in Suit, that were provided to Audible Magic and Vobile in 2007 (see Brian Willen's February 3, 2010 Letter to Luke Platzer, at ir 4). Plaintiffs provided works to Vobile in 2007 solely for testing purposes, and not for purposes of identifying those works on the Internet. With regard to Audible Magic, attached hereto as Attachment G - Supplemental is a chart listing all works Plaintiffs provided or made available to Audible Magic in 2007 for purposes of creating a digital fingerprint. In addition, Paramount supplied works to Audible Magic in 2007 for purposes of creating digital fingerprints; a list of those works is attached hereto as Attachment H - Supplemental. 9 CONFIDENTIAL Respectfully submitted, April 16, 2010 Susan J. Kohlmaim (SK-1855) .zj':/Y;L/C_ 0_ ~r7 t~)~~2Qc"._. "./IJ(c/( lr. JENNER & BLOCK LLP 919 Third Avenue 37th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 891-1600 Facsimile: (212) 891-1699 Wiliam M. Hohengarten (WH-5233) Michael B. DeSanctis (MD-5737) Scott B. Wilkens (pro hac vice) JENNER & BLOCK LLP 1099 New York Avenue, N.W. Suite 900 Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 639-6000 Facsimile: (202) 639-6066 Stuart J. Baskin (SB-9936) Stephen Fishbein (SF-3410) John Gueli (JG-8427) SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP 599 Lexington Avenue New York, New York 10022 Telephone: (212) 848-4000 Facsimile: (212) 848-7179 10 CONFIDENTIAL VERIFICATION FOR PLAINTIFFS VIACOM INTERNATIONAL INC., ET AL. Information in Plaintiffs' Supplemental and Amended Objections and Responses to Certain of YouTube's Interrogatories was provided by me and/or gathered at my direction from corporate records and personneL. I have reviewed the responses. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing responses as to Plaintiffs Viacom International Inc. et aL. are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, based on my review of such information. Executed on April ~ 2010, in Me w tPrlL i )) '( Signature: 31 ~ Name (print): "5~II\e Title: \I?, AsSecaJe ~~ (w"&( 9 ~cl L;Jvi~-l ro'fe.'(z,v CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served on this _ day of April 2010, on Defendants' counsel by electronic mail pursuant to an agreement of the parties under Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b )(2)(D). Attachment E - Supplemental VIA00330130-VIA00330133 VIA00330203-VIA00330204 VIA00330322 VIA00330343 VIA00330415-VIA00330415 VIA00330494-VIA00330495 VIA00346044-VIA00346047 VIA00346888-VIA00346892 VIA00347270-VIA00347280 VIA00347403-VIA00347441 VIA00347964 VIA00356582-VIA00356583 VIA00366609-VIA00366611 VIA00366904-VIA00366905 VIA00369535-VIA00369536 VIA00369543-VIA00369544 VIA00369594-VIA00369596 VIA00369779-VIA00369781 VIA00372241 VIA00372294 VIA00373382-VIA00373390 VIA00373413-VIA00373421 VIA00373855-VIA00373859 VIA00374543-VIA00374544 VIA00374792-VIA00374796 VIA00376546 VIA00376595 VIA00377960 VIA00378149-VIA00378150 VIA00378415-VIA00378416 VIA00397856-VIA00397862 VIA00430652 VIA00455125 VIA00471113 VIA00471114-VIA00471115 VIA00471119-VIA00471120 VIA00471163 VIA00670702 VIA00670748 VIA00670749 VIA00670750 VIA00702697-VIA00702698 VIA00703450 VIA00703454-VIA00703460 VIA00830842-VIA00830860 VIA00830846-VIA00830852 VIA00830853-VIA00830860 VIA01179951-VIA01179952 VIA01986346-VIA01986348 VIA02359230-VIA02359232 VIA02359310-VIA02359312 VIA03021632-VIA03021635 VIA03164885-VIA03164893 VIA03169246 VIA10526547 VIA10350444 VIA10350452 VIA10388931-VIA10388932 VIA10389617-VIA10389624 VIA10390550-VIA10390552 VIA10390963-VIA10390964 VIA10391785-VIA10391787 VIA10392821-VIA10392822 VIA10401737 VIA10402225 VIA10402727 VIA10404875 VIA10405142-VIA10405143 VIA10405260 VIA10405349 VIA10405377-VIA10405378 VIA10405527-VIA10405528 VIA10405537-VIA10405538 VIA10405807 VIA10405875-VIA10405877 VIA10406091-VIA10406092 VIA10474343-VIA10474345 VIA10474714 VIA10478816-VIA10478821 VIA10483206-VIA10483209 VIA10484480 VIA10485349-VIA10485350 VIA10485351-VIA10485353 VIA10485973 VIA10487876 VIA10487903 VIA10495554 VIA11660417-VIA11660421 VIA11786392 VIA11786495-VIA11786522 VIA11787170-VIA11787182 VIA11789323-VIA11789325 VIA11789331-VIA11789333 VIA11789334-VIA11789336 1 CONFIDENTIAL Attachment E - Supplemental VIA00861835-VIA00861836 VIA00862907-VIA00862908 VIA00911618-VIA00911619 VIA01107876-VIA01107878 VIA01107971-VIA01107973 VIA01127416-VIA01127417 VIA01145487-VIA01145488 VIA01163976-VIA01163977 VIA11789365-VIA11789367 VIA11789368-VIA11789372 VIA11789373-VIA11789375 VIA12557484 VIA14067446-VIA14067449 VIA14759662-VIA14759663 VIA16074316-VIA16074319 2 CONFIDENTIAL Rubin Reply Exhibit 180

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?