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

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728PLAINTIFFS’ INTRODUCTORY STATEMENTIn these actions for copyright infringement and related claims, Plaintiffsserved straightforward discovery requests about the device and system at the heartof this case -- a digital video recorder (“DVR”) marketed by Defendants called the“ReplayTV 4000.” Plaintiffs bring this motion because, despite their best efforts,Defendants still refuse to provide crucial responsive documents and information.Defendants market the ReplayTV 4000 as a “revolutionary product” with “ahuge array of features you won’ t find anywhere else.” See www.replay.com. Tounderstand this “revolutionary” product, Plaintiffs served, on December 3, 2001, amodest number of document requests and interrogatories targeted to obtain the keymaterials they need to prepare their case. In response to most requests, Defendantsoffer either nothing at all, or only a carefully hedged production that leaves outcrucial documents and data. This Joint Stipulation discusses seven areas in whichDefendants have refused to produce critically needed materials:1. Documents about the actual design of the ReplayTV 4000 andabout other designs considered by Defendants. To present their claims fordirect, contributory, and vicarious infringement (and other theories of liability), andto rebut Defendant’ s affirmative defenses, Plaintiffs need a full picture of how theReplayTV 4000 was designed, why it was designed that way, and how it works.But in response to Plaintiffs’ core requests about the design of the ReplayTV 4000,Defendants have elected to withhold most of the relevant documents. On thedevice’ s current design and operation, Defendants offer only a counsel-selectedsample from Defendants’ many documents. And although the availability toDefendants of other, non-infringing, designs is directly relevant to Defendants’liability, Defendants again offer only a heavily edited production, which omits mostof the documents likely to reflect candid discussions by Defendants’ employeesabout how the ReplayTV 4000 could be designed.1