Paramount Pictures Corporation v. ReplayTV, Inc., Joint Stipulation ...

1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272873,288, 50 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 139 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 19, 2001) (granting motion tocompel production of fifteen draft advertisements in connection with FTC falseadvertising investigation).In response to these reasonable requests, Defendants have offered to produceonly the final versions of their marketing and advertising materials. Defendantshave refused to produce drafts of those materials or to provide any internaldocuments discussing their marketing and advertising strategy.Defendants’ objection appears to be based principally on the supposed“ burden” of gathering the requested material. But that objection is a makeweight:Defendants’ own interrogatory answers indicate that only two people wereprincipally involved in generating advertising for the ReplayTV 4000. SeeResponse to Paramount Interrogatory No. 7. It will scarcely be unduly burdensometo conduct a thorough search of the files of these two employees, and perhaps of ahandful of others who assisted them.This Court should therefore compel Defendants to respond fully to DocumentRequest No. 26 and to provide not only final copies of their advertising materials,but all marketing and advertising materials, including any drafts of advertising andpromotional materials and any internal memoranda and communications aboutadvertising claims and strategies.C. Defendants’ Contentions Regarding The Requests At Issue:Defendants Have Agreed To Provide The Probative Documents,But Are Not Required To Respond To Plaintiffs’ OverreachingDemands For The Irrelevant.Once again, Defendants have fully responded to Plaintiffs’ request byagreeing on January 9 to produce “ Defendants’ materials for promotion, marketing,advertising, and sales of the ReplayTV 4000.” See Response to Request No. 26.Defendants also agreed to “ produce their marketing plans for the ReplayTV 4000”in response to Plaintiffs’ second set of document requests (Request No. 45). These94