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

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728Plaintiffs the ability to conduct discovery of that person. Unlike Plaintiffs,Defendants have recognized, honored, and will continue to honor their obligation toidentify non-employee percipient witnesses. 53/IV.Discovery Relating To Financial Benefits From, and CommunicationsWith Potential Licensees And Investors About, the ReplayTV 4000 andSimilar DevicesA. The Requests At IssueDOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 7Any and all Documents relating to, regarding, referring to, or reflecting anyagreement or discussions regarding the licensing or conveyance of any right todevelop or market a product, software, or device that would permit users of theproduct, software or device to view Audiovisual Works with omission or skippingof commercials or to send Audiovisual Works to others by any means, includingwithout limitation by broadband connection.RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 7Defendants object that demand for “ [a]ny and all Documents relating to,regarding, or referring to, or reflecting any agreement or discussions” regarding thelicensing of commercial skipping or send show technology is overly broad,burdensome, and harassing. Plaintiffs’ request is also oppressive and notMoreover, as to those persons who are not at this point known to be likelywitnesses, if the Court were to order Defendants not to contact such persons whoseidentities were known only to Defendants, the Court would need to likewise orderthat Plaintiffs may not contact any person whose identity is known to Plaintiffs buthas not been identified in discovery. Plaintiffs have thus far failed to identify anynon-employee witnesses (other than Defendants’ own employees). Even as to theirown employees, Plaintiffs have not identified their employees involved in therelevant issues other than one or two described as “ principally involved” in aparticular subject. By their own logic, Plaintiffs should be precluded fromcontacting anyone whose identity has not been turned over because they have notidentified such persons to Defendants.53/67