00897-20020405 replay 3d jnt Stip

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728

4007/48424-006 LAWORD/5739 v1 3/24/02 2:23:42 PM (15007)

THOMAS P. OLSON (

pro hac vice

)WILMER, CUTLER & PICKERING2445 M Street, NWWashington, DC 20037Telephone: (202) 663-6000Facsimile: (202) 663-6363

Attorneys for the Paramount, Disney & NBC Plaintiffs

ROBERT M. SCHWARTZ (Cal. Bar No. 117166)

O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP1999 Avenue of the Stars, Seventh FloorLos Angeles, California 90067-6035Telephone: (310) 553-6700Facsimile: (310) 246-6779

Attorneys for the Time Warner Plaintiffs

SCOTT P. COOPER (Cal. Bar No. 96905)PROSKAUER ROSE LLP2049 Century Park East, Suite 3200Los Angeles, CA 90067Telephone: (310) 557-2900Facsimile: (310) 557-2193

Attorneys for the MGM, Fox & Universal Plaintiffs

ROBERT H. ROTSTEIN (Cal. Bar No. 72452)McDERMOTT, WILL & EMERY2049 Century Park East, 34

th

FloorLos Angeles, CA 90067Telephone: (310) 284-6101Facsimile: (310) 277-4730

Attorneys for the Columbia Plaintiffs

[Full counsel appearances on signature page]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PARAMOUNT PICTURESCORPORATION

et al.,

Plaintiffs,v.REPLAYTV, INC.

et al.,

Defendants.Case No. CV 01-9358 FMC (Ex)

JOINT STIPULATION FOR

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TOCOMPEL

Discovery Cutoff: May 31, 2002Pretrial Conference: July 29, 2002

Trial Date: August 20, 2002AND CONSOLIDATED ACTIONS.

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728i

4007/48424-006 LAWORD/5739 v1 3/24/02 2:23:42 PM (15007)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES....................................................................................iv

PLAINTIFFS’ INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT...................................................1

DEFENDANTS’ INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT...............................................4

I.

Discovery about the Actual Capabilities of the ReplayTV 4000 andPotential Design Alternatives...........................................................................7

A.

The Requests At Issue...........................................................................7

B.

Plaintiffs’ Contentions Regarding the Requests At Issue...................15

1.

Documents relating to the development, design, andfunctioning of the ReplayTV 4000 as it is

currently

constituted..................................................................................17

2.

Documents relating to

alternative

designs for theReplayTV 4000.........................................................................19

C.

Defendants’ Contentions Regarding the Requests At Issue:Defendants Are Providing All Documents ReasonablyNecessary To Assessment of the Disputed Issues...............................21

1.

Defendants Agreed Three Months Ago To ProduceDocuments On The ReplayTV 4000 As CurrentlyManufactured.............................................................................23

2.

Documents Relating To Alternative Designs ThatWere Not Adopted Are Irrelevant To TheReplayTV 4000’s Current Capabilities, Which AreThe Only Issue Presented Here.................................................26

II.

Information and Documents about How ReplayTV Owners Use theDevices...........................................................................................................29

A.

The Requests At Issue.........................................................................29

B.

Plaintiffs’ Contentions Regarding The Requests At Issue..................36

1.

The Information Sought is Plainly Relevant.............................37

2.

Defendants’ Claim that They Have No RelevantData............................................................................................39

3.

What This Court Should Do......................................................42

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728ii

C.

Defendants’ Contentions Regarding The Requests At Issue:The Discovery Rules Cannot Support An Order CommandingDefendants To Develop and Install In Their Customers’Devices A Software Program To Create New Data WhichDoes Not Now And Has Never Existed..............................................44

1.

Defendants Do Not Presently Have The DataPlaintiffs Request To Be Produced...........................................45

2.

The New Software Plaintiffs Are RequestingWould Require Four Months To Develop And CostHundreds Of Thousands Of Dollars..........................................47

3.

Rule 34 Neither Requires Nor Authorizes An OrderTo Create Records That Do Not Exist......................................48

4.

Defendants Could Collect Limited InformationReported Through The MyReplayTV Service..........................51

5.

The Information Plaintiffs Have Requested WouldInvade Consumer’s Legitimate Rights Of Privacy...................52

6.

Plaintiffs Have Shown No Need For Discovery Of The Recordings Made By Defendants’ EmployeesIn Product Development............................................................57

III.

Discovery Relating to ReplayTV 4000 Customers........................................59

A.

The Requests at Issue...........................................................................59

B.

Plaintiffs’ Contentions Regarding the Requests at Issue.....................62

C.

Defendants’ Contentions Regarding the Requests At Issue................65

IV.

Discovery Relating To Financial Benefits From, and CommunicationsWith Potential Licensees And Investors About, the ReplayTV 4000and Similar Devices.......................................................................................67

A.

The Requests At Issue.........................................................................67

B.

Plaintiffs’ Contentions Regarding The Requests At Issue..................72

1.

Documents and Information About Advertising byDefendants Delivered Through the ReplayTV 4000................74

2.

Documents and Information about Licensing byDefendants.................................................................................76

3.

Information and Documents about Efforts to ObtainFunding Based on the ReplayTV 4000.....................................77

C.

Defendants’ Contentions Regarding the Requests At Issue................78