Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Motion Denied Divx

Motion Denied Divx

Ratings:

4.5

(2)
|Views: 19 |Likes:
Published by Davis Freeberg
After differing over the scope of discovery, the judge in the DivX/UMG case makes clarifications.
After differing over the scope of discovery, the judge in the DivX/UMG case makes clarifications.

More info:

Published by: Davis Freeberg on Aug 07, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/07/2009

pdf

text

original

 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA  WESTERN DIVISIONCIVIL MINUTES--GENERAL
Case No. CV 07-6835 AHM (AJWx) Date: August 6, 2009Title: UMG RECORDINGS, INC., et al. v. DIVX, INC.===================================================================
PRESENT:
HON.ANDREW J. WISTRICH, MAGISTRATE JUDGE
 Ysela BenavidesDeputy Clerk Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:None Present None Present
ORDER REGARDING DIVX’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TOINTERROGATORIES 10, 11, AND 13
 
 AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 11 AND 96
As to interrogatories 10, 11 and 13, the motion is
denied
. In thecourt’s view, these interrogatories should be treated as oneseparately countable interrogatory for each of the approximately2600 allegedly infringed works, each possessing three non-separately countable subparts. This obviously exceeds the numericallimit on the number of interrogatories that may be served. SeeFed. R. Civ. P. 33(a). To instead treat these as three separatelycountable interrogatories, each possessing approximately 2600 non-separately countable subparts would defeat the purposes of thenumerical limit in the particular circumstances presented here.See generally Advisory Committee Note to 1993 Amendment to Fed. R.Civ. P. 33. In addition to violating the numerical limit, each ofthese interrogatories runs afoul of the principles contained inFed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). Insofar as interrogatory 10 isconcerned, Divx has not identified a single example of an allegedlyinfringed work that was distributed in appreciable quantitieswithout notice prior to March 1, 1989, or an allegedly infringedwork that was distributed after March 1, 1989 in a manner thatdeprived Divx of access to the knowledge that the work was subjectto copyright. Therefore, collecting the information sought byinterrogatory 10 does not appear to be a sufficiently productiveenterprise that the court would be warranted in imposing thesubstantial burden of doing so on UMG. As to interrogatories 11and 13, UMG already has produced its licenses, and it confirmedduring the hearing that its production is complete. Therefore,insofar as entities other than UMG are concerned, Divx either hasmuch of the relevant information or can obtain it for itself aboutas readily as can UMG. Insofar as UMG’s own policies and practicesare concerned, the documents UMG already has produced, augmented bythose it is required by this order to produce in response torequest for production 96, should provide Divx with much of theinformation it needs.
Case 2:07-cv-06835-AHM-AJW Document 259 Filed 08/06/2009 Page 1 of 2

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->