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

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728least three different grounds. First, these materials are relevant to the “ financialbenefit” prong of vicarious infringement. See Napster, 114 F. Supp.2d at 921(relying on Napster internal documents about its revenue raising plans to showrequisite financial benefit for vicarious infringement claim), aff’d in relevant part,239 F.3d at 1023. Second, the materials are relevant because they containstatements by Defendants about the product at issue in this case (the ReplayTV4000), and may contain statements by potential investors about the economicimportance of particular infringing features. Since Defendants’ statements topotential investors about the ReplayTV 4000 must be accurate on pain of potentialliability under the securities laws, these statements are of exceptional probativevalue. Third, the materials are relevant because they are likely to reflectDefendants’ future plans to expand or enhance their infringing conduct. See MowTrading Corp., 749 F. Supp. at 475.Therefore, Plaintiffs request that the Court order Defendants to respondcompletely to Document Request Nos. 7-8, 16, and 27-28 and Disney InterrogatoryNos. 11-12.C. Defendants’ Contentions Regarding the Requests At IssueDefendants have agreed to produce any actual license agreements, licensingdiscussions and any plans for licensing Commercial Advance and Send Show.These are the only features at issue in this dispute and therefore the only basis forPlaintiffs to predicate discovery. Defendants have also agreed to produceinformation reflecting revenues received from the sale of the Replay TV 4000.Defendants have even agreed to provide their top level business and marketingplans for the ReplayTV 4000.What Defendants are resisting is a burdensome and intrusive documentproduction into all documents in any way related to the numerous aspects of theReplayTV 4000 that are not alleged to be infringing, and by which Plaintiffs78