10.07.2015 Views

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

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

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728(3) provide the foregoing data to Plaintiffs in a readily-understandableelectronic format and provide any technical assistance that may be necessary forPlaintiffs to review the data;(4) provide Plaintiffs with all documents about Defendants’ consideration ofwhat data to gather or not to gather about their customers’ uses of the <strong>ReplayTV</strong>4000; 30/ and(5) provide Plaintiffs with any other documents (such as emails or logs)reflecting what works have been copied with the <strong>ReplayTV</strong> 4000 and how thoseworks have been stored, viewed, or distributed.C. Defendants’ Contentions Regarding The Requests At Issue: TheDiscovery Rules Cannot Support An Order CommandingDefendants To Develop and Install In Their Customers’ Devices ASoftware Program To Create New Data Which Does Not Now AndHas Never Existed.Plaintiffs rely on a series of false assumptions to demand an unprecedentedand highly intrusive order that Defendants write and install in their customers’devices (as well as in their own servers) new software to spy on their owncustomers and then deliver the fruits of that espionage to Plaintiffs. They seek thisinjunction to compel Defendants to collect information Defendants have never hadand that does not presently exist. Plaintiffs do not merely seek a court-orderedsurveillance campaign against Defendants’ consumers. Under the guise of anordinary discovery motion, Plaintiffs seek to impose a mandatory new obligationupon the manufacturer of a consumer electronics product to design and adopt acapability to monitor future usage for alleged copyright violations. Once thatcapability exists, Plaintiffs argue there is a further mandatory obligation to conduct30/Documents reflecting decisions by a Defendant to avoid learning what theircustomers do with Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works are independently relevant. See,e.g., Napster, 239 F.3d at 1023 (“ Turning a blind eye to detectable acts ofinfringement for the sake of profit gives rise to liability.” ).44

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!