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

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627285. Documents relating to submission of the ReplayTV to third partyreviewers. Despite their indisputable relevance, Defendants refuse to produce anydocuments (other than certain generic materials) about submissions to third partyreviewers or to provide Plaintiffs with any of the responses by the reviewers.6. Materials about marketing and promotion of the ReplayTV 4000.Defendants refuse to produce any drafts of advertising or promotional materials(which may contain candid statements excised in later editing) or to produce any oftheir internal plans for how to market and advertise the ReplayTV 4000.7. Efforts to obtain licenses for the conduct at issue in this case.Defendants have told the press that they wish to seek (and need to obtain)permission to transmit TV programs themselves over the Internet, but they marketthe ReplayTV 4000 system, through which they enable others to transmit the sameworks without any permission. Plaintiffs need discovery to explore this paradox,but Defendants refuse to produce any documents about their efforts to obtain suchlicenses.Plaintiffs seek this Court’ s assistance only after a diligent, but ultimatelyfrustrating and unsuccessful, effort to resolve these matters through the meet-andconferprocess. On February 19, 2002, Plaintiffs started that process with a 22-pageletter explaining the deficiencies in Defendants’ initial responses. After receivingDefendants’ March 1st letter in response, Plaintiffs arranged for more than sevenhours of telephonic conferences to discuss these requests. But Defendants’intransigence made that process largely fruitless. Plaintiffs therefore request anOrder compelling Defendants to provide full responses (or in one case to correcttheir proposed asymmetrical access to witnesses) in the areas described above.3