10.07.2015 Views

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

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

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728Napster system necessarily harms the copyright holders’ attempts to charge for thesame downloads.” ) (emphasis added).The Court should therefore compel Defendants to provide all documentsrelating to their efforts to obtain licenses for audiovisual works and to respond fullyto Document Request No. 25 and Disney Interrogatory Nos. 17 and 19.C. Defendants’ Contentions Regarding The Requests At Issue<strong>Paramount</strong> Request No. 25, and Disney Interrogatories 17 and 19 seekinformation about licenses for “ AudioVisual Works or content.” Defendants havenot entered into such licenses for the <strong>ReplayTV</strong> 4000 and stated as much in thewritten responses served nearly three months ago. The fact that Defendants haveentered no licenses concedes Plaintiffs’ assertion they have not authorizedDefendants’ activities or any alleged infringements.Undeterred by this concession, Plaintiffs responded in the March 7 meet andconfer by demanding every communication relating to potential licensing ofaudiovisual works for any product or use (other than Defendants’ Rio line of musicplayers). Plaintiffs’ continued insistence on this overly broad discovery is baseless,seeks irrelevant material, and attempts to delve into Defendants’ business activitiesentirely unrelated to any alleged infringement.Plaintiffs fail to articulate any basis – let alone a legitimate basis – for thisdiscovery. The only product at issue in this suit is the <strong>ReplayTV</strong> 4000. Plaintiffshave not even attempted to articulate a basis for seeking documents aboutDefendants’ other products and services. With respect to actual and potentiallicenses not involving the <strong>ReplayTV</strong> 4000, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel should bedenied for this reason alone.With respect to licenses involving the <strong>ReplayTV</strong> 4000, Defendants claimthey must obtain Defendants’ confidential plans and negotiations in order to explorethe supposed “ contradiction” between Defendants’ licensing of materials for101

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!