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

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728engineer wrote a long memo explaining exactly how the operating code for theReplayTV 4000 works, it will not be produced. If two ReplayTV, Inc.programmers exchanged emails about designing a “ Send Show” feature that wouldbe usable only for home movies (unlike the actual “ Send Show” feature of theReplayTV 4000), but decided (based on oral conversations with management) todrop the idea, those communications would be highly relevant -- but they areexcluded from Defendants’ narrow proffer. If one of the engineers actually wrotesoftware code to implement that idea, Defendants would likewise refuse to producethe code. And if Defendants’ executives discussed the idea among themselves(e.g., by email or in memoranda), those documents likewise will be withheld.The importance of receiving all of the documents requested -- and not merelya carefully sifted selection of them -- is straightforward. First, Plaintiffs need toknow full details concerning how the ReplayTV 4000 -- as it is currentlyconstituted -- is designed and works. (As discussed below, there are manyunresolved factual issues on that score, which can be settled only by a review of thefull factual record.) Second, Plaintiffs need to know what alternative designsDefendants have considered -- but have elected, at least so far, not to employ.Defendants’ narrowly limited proffer will prevent Plaintiffs from learning therelevant facts about either of these core topics.1. Documents relating to the development, design, and functioning of theReplayTV 4000 as it is currently constituted.Defendants’ refusal to provide a complete set of documents about the actual,current capabilities of the ReplayTV 4000 is indefensible. Plaintiffs do not knowall the facts about the ReplayTV 4000, and the only way to find out is to review allrelevant documents -- not merely a sample of documents hand-picked by counselfor Defendants.17