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

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728recognized in limiting the method of inspection that “ the source codes of a softwarecompany such as Macromedia are of critical importance to its business and must beprovided the highest form of protection a court can provide in the context of aparticular case.” Id. at *3. Defendants’ agreement to make source code availableprovides Plaintiffs the highest possible access to the device’ s functionabilty.There is nothing unbalanced or insufficient about Defendants’ inspection andproduction offers to date. In addition to production of the ReplayTV 4000 unitsand source code, Defendants asked those persons principally involved to produceall documents in their possession, custody or control about the features specificallyidentified in the requests. Since Plaintiffs have not even seen the internaldocuments or source code, they have no basis for claiming that Defendants mightbe withholding relevant information. 15/Plaintiffs’ premature complaint is particularly unjust in light of their owndiscovery responses, in which they construe Defendants’ requests “ only to require”that Plaintiffs search:[T]heir headquarters of files of their current officers,directors, and employees most likely to have responsivedocuments or information about the specific matters atissue and based on review of the Paramount Plaintiffs’files in which such information or documents ordinarilywould be expected to be found.See Paramount’ s General Objection No. 8, Response to ReplayTV’ s First Set ofDocument Requests. Plaintiffs have also refused to provide documents of theiraffiliated companies, despite Rule 34’ s obligation to produce documents in their“ possession, custody or control.” Indeed, Plaintiffs have refused to provide anybasic, top-level business plans— even while insisting that Defendants scour everycomputer in their business for irrelevant documents. Plaintiffs’ interpretation ofPlaintiffs accuse Defendants of stalling when Plaintiffs delayed initiating anymeet and confer until late February – six weeks after Defendants served theirdiscovery responses.15/25