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

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party.” SincePlaintiffs are only seeking injunctive and declaratory relief and not damages for anyparticular works, the identity of and number of every audiovisual work viewed,copied, received, sent, or stored by users of the ReplayTV 4000 is not relevant ornecessary to determination of the issues. Plaintiffs’ demand for such documents istherefore not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidenceand exceeds the scope and limits of discovery. Defendants also object to the extentthat Plaintiffs seek documents regarding the individual viewing activities ofDefendants’ customers. Such documents are protected by the customers’ individualright of privacy. Defendants further object to the extent that the request seeksdocuments protected by attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine.DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 5Any and all Documents relating to, regarding, referring to, or reflecting anyand all efforts by Defendant to detect, assess, monitor, or prevent the copying,sending, receipt, or viewing of copyright protected programming with or via theReplayTV 4000.RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 5Defendants object on the ground that the demand is overly broad,burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissibleevidence. Defendants object on the ground that Plaintiffs seek confidentialdocuments. Defendants object to the extent Plaintiffs seek documents protected byattorney-client privilege, work product doctrine or any other applicable privilege.Subject to and without waiving the general or specific objections, Defendantrespond as follows: Defendants will produce documents sufficient to showDefendants’ efforts to design, format or structure the ReplayTV 4000 to limit or31