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

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728For all of these reasons, the Court should order Defendants to produce alldocuments responsive to Plaintiffs’ Document Request Nos. 4-6, 9-14, 15 and 20. 10/C. Defendants’ Contentions Regarding the Requests At Issue:Defendants Are Providing All Documents Reasonably NecessaryTo Assessment of the Disputed Issues.Defendants agreed on January 9 to produce documents “ sufficient to showthe development, technical design, conceptual design, testing, use, function andcontent of the ReplayTV 4000 and its Send Show, AutoSkip, PC Connectivity, FindShow and the programming guide features.” See Defendants’ Response to RequestNos. 4, 9 – 15. They further agreed to produce documents showing “ Defendants’efforts to design, format or structure the ReplayTV 4000 to limit or prevent thecopying, sending, or receipt of copyrighted programming.” See Response toRequest Nos. 5 and 6.Without seeing these documents, and seizing on the words “ sufficient toshow,” Plaintiffs speculate that Defendants are somehow selectively withholdingrelevant information. This is simply false. Defendants have assured Plaintiffsduring the meet and confer process that they will produce documents for thosepersons principally involved in the design and development, 11/ as well as documentsIn addition to producing all design and development documents about theactual (and alternative) designs of the ReplayTV 4000, Defendants should beordered to produce any alternative version of the operating software, and to produceall documents that explain how the software works (including any manuals, flowcharts, or algorithms). Finally, Defendants have refused to permit even a thirdparty expert to review the source code except on Defendants’ premises. Thisrequirement is unnecessary and would significantly interfere with the ability ofPlaintiffs’ experts to analyze and evaluate the source code, and the Court shouldorder Defendants to produce the source code without that unreasonable restriction.10/Plaintiffs suggest that Defendants have not conducted a thorough search andargue that a complete search for responsive documents is “ perfectly manageable”because Defendants have only identified eleven persons who were principallyinvolved in the design and development. This conveniently ignores the fact thatPlaintiffs have never limited their requests to persons principally involved. Indeed,the point of their present motion is to seek an order compelling any and alldocuments (no matter how insignificant) from any and all persons who may beconnected in any way.11/21