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

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728Since Defendants know how to collect information about the customers’ usesof the ReplayTV 4000, have collected it in the past, and tell their customers thatthey collect it, they should be ordered to provide Plaintiffs with a complete set ofdata -- with third party users identified only by unique identification numbers --about how their users employ the ReplayTV 4000. Specifically, the Court shouldorder Defendants to:(1) take the steps necessary to use their broadband connections withReplayTV 4000 customers to gather all available information about how users ofthe ReplayTV employ the devices, including all available information about whatworks are copied, stored, viewed with commercials omitted, or distributed to thirdparties with the ReplayTV 4000, when each of those events took place, and thelike; 29/ (2) implement Defendants’ offer to collect available data from a secondsource -- the MyReplayTV.com web site -- about how users of the ReplayTVemploy the devices, but for all time periods for which that data can be collected,rather than just for a short period;same information could be extracted any less expensively if the records were kept inless modern forms. Indeed, one might expect the reverse to be true, for otherwisecomputers would not have gained such widespread use in the storing and handlingof information.” ) (emphasis added); 8A Wright, Miller & Marcus, Fed. Prac. &Proc. Civ.2d § 2218 (“ Rule 34 applies to electronic data compilations from whichinformation can be obtained only with the use of detection devices, and [ ] when thedata can as a practical matter be made usable by the discovering party only throughrespondent’ s devices, respondent may be required to use his devices to translate thedata into usable form.” )29/The information need not identify any individuals by name, but data fordifferent users should be provided with a unique, anonymous identifier (such as“ ReplayTV 4000 User A98765” ). The sole exception is Defendants’ own officersand employees, whose copying and distribution of Plaintiffs’ works may constitutedirect copyright infringement. To prove that fact, Plaintiffs need to know whichSONICblue or ReplayTV officers and employees have copied and distributedparticular works.43