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

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728DEFENDANTS’ INTRODUCTORY STATEMENTDefendants have responded to Plaintiffs’ excessively broad and oftentimesharassing discovery with good faith written assurances that they will produce therelevant, probative, and responsive documents. These documents include:• Conceptual and technical design, development and testing of theReplayTV 4000, including Defendants’ ultra-secret source code;• Marketing and business plans for the ReplayTV 4000;• Regular communications with Defendants’ investors and analysts;• Any licensing agreements, discussions and plans to license theallegedly infringing features – Commercial Advance and Send Show;• Submission materials and third party responses for evaluation, reviewor competition; and• Promotional, advertising, sales and marketing materials.Without seeing these documents, Plaintiffs speculate that Defendants aresomehow selectively withholding information. Nothing in Defendants’communications with Plaintiffs supports this assertion. The reality is Defendantsare producing all responsive documents from all persons principally involved inthe development, marketing, and advertising of the ReplayTV 4000 or fromsenior management. Defendants have also agreed to produce all documentsreflecting management decisions or instructions. There is nothing edited aboutthis production. Plaintiffs are receiving the relevant, unexpurgated documents.Plaintiffs would know this by now if they had not held discovery hostage byrefusing any exchange of materials until finalization of a protective order. Instead,Plaintiffs have ground discovery to a halt until Defendants agree to give “ attorneys’eyes only” documents to Plaintiffs’ affiliates to review. 1/1/Plaintiffs’ present motion is merely an attempt to impose cost, undue burden,Plaintiffs demand that “ attorneys’ eyes only” documents be provided to an unlimitednumber of undisclosed employees of affiliates if deemed “ reasonably necessary to assist OutsideCounsel in evaluati[on].” Of course, counsel would always like to have, and can generally saythey would be assisted by, clients’ evaluation of “ attorneys’ eyes only” documents. But the verypurpose of such a protective order is to protect against such evaluation. Plaintiffs’ purportedexception to confidentiality swallows the rule.4