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

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728of privacy. Defendants object to the extent that the interrogatory seeks informationprotected by attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine.Subject to and without waiving the general or specific objections, Defendantsrespond as follows: ReplayTV/SONICblue employees identified in Defendants’initial disclosures had access to the ReplayTV 4000 as well as people who visitedthe SONICblue booth at the trade shows and events identified in response toInterrogatory No. 9 of Disney Enterprises Inc.’ s First Set of Special Interrogatories.B. Plaintiffs’ Contentions Regarding the Requests at IssueAs discussed above, Plaintiffs believe that the sensible and efficient way togather information about how Defendants’ customers use the ReplayTV 4000 isthrough Defendants’ own electronic data-gathering capability, rather than byattempting to obtain testimony from individual ReplayTV 4000 owners. To ensurethat they will not be at an unfair disadvantage vis-a-vis Defendants, however,Plaintiffs have sought (through Document Request Nos. 17 and 31 and ParamountInterrogatory No. 16) information about the identities of the individuals(employees, customers, and testers) who actually use Defendants’ ReplayTV 4000.In response to these requests, Defendants have taken (during the meet-andconferprocess) the following, blatantly unfair, position: Defendants can contacttheir own customers and testers to gather evidence to be presented to the Court --and can provide their customer list to a research firm for purposes of a survey -- butthey will refuse to provide information about these witnesses to Plaintiffs, who willeffectively have no ability whatsoever to contact these witnesses or to conduct asurvey of them.Defendants’ position is outrageous. It would be grossly unfair for a party tobe allowed to develop critically relevant evidence from an important category of62