12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
D
EFENDANTS
’
S
UPPLEMENTAL
B
RIEF
R
EGARDING
J
URY
I
NSTRUCTIONS
W i n s t o n & S t r a w n L L P
3 3 3 S . G r a n d A v e n u e L o s A n g e l e s , C A 9 0 0 7 1 - 1 5 4 3
Mcae S. En amtte
pro hac vice
melkin@winston.comThomas Patrick Lane (admitted
pro hac vice
)tlane@winston.com
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166Telephone: (212) 294-6700Facsimile: (212) 294-4700Ira P. Rothken (SBN: 160029)ira@techfirm.netJared R. Smith (SBN: 130343) jared@techfirm.net
ROTHKEN LAW FIRM
3 Hamilton Landing, Suite 280 Novato, CA 94949Telephone: (415) 924-4250Facsimile: (415) 924-2905Erin R. Ranahan (SBN: 235286)eranahan@winston.com
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
333 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3800Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543Telephone: (213) 615-1700Facsimile: 213 615-1750Jennifer A. Golinveaux (SBN:203056) jgolinveaux@winston.comThomas J. Kearney (SBN: 267087)tkearney@winston.com
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
101 California StreetSan Francisco, CA 94111-5802Telephone: (415) 591-1000Facsimile: (415) 591-1400Attorneys for Defendants,GARY FUNG and ISOHUNT WEB TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
COLUMBIA PICTURES INDUSTRIES,INC., et al.,Plaintiffs,v.GARY FUNG, et al.,Defendants.
Case No. CV 06-5578-SVW (JCx)DEFENDANTS’ SUPPLEMENTALBRIEF REGARDING JURYINSTRUCTIONS (DKT. 675)
Hearing: October 28, 2013Time: 1:30 p.m.Trial Date: November 5, 2013
Case 2:06-cv-05578-SVW-JC Document 682 Filed 10/10/13 Page 1 of 33 Page ID #:8078
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
i
D
EFENDANTS
’
S
UPPLEMENTAL
B
RIEF
R
EGARDING
J
URY
I
NSTRUCTIONS
W i n s t o n & S t r a w n L L P
3 3 3 S . G r a n d A v e n u e L o s A n g e l e s , C A 9 0 0 7 1 - 1 5 4 3
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage
I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1II. STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................... 2A. This Case .................................................................................................... 2B. Despite Affirming Liability Based On Inducement, The NinthCircuit Makes Clear Causation Must Be Carefully Assessed InDamages Phase ........................................................................................... 3C. Plaintiffs Seek To Exponentially Expand The Scope Of The CaseIn The Damages Phase ............................................................................... 3D. The Financial Realities Of This Case ........................................................ 4E. The Court Seeks Guidance Regarding What Factors The Jury CanAnd Should Consider When Deciding What Amount Of StatutoryDamages Are Just ....................................................................................... 5III. THE JURY IS AFFORDED WIDE DISCRETION IN DECIDING THEAMOUNT OF STATUTORY DAMAGES ......................................................... 6A. Supreme Court Guidance On Punitive Damages ....................................... 8B. Application Of Due Process Principles To Statutory DamagesUnder The Copyright Act ........................................................................ 10IV. THE JURY SHOULD CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING FACTORS TOINFORM THEIR WIDE DISCRETION OF AWARDING FAIR ANDAPPROPRIATE STATUTORY DAMAGES IN THIS CASE ........................ 131. Factor 1: Plaintiffs’ Revenues Regarding The Alleged Infringed Works Must Be Disclosed So That The Jury CanConsider The Financial Realities Of This Case ............................. 132. Factor 2: The Degree Of Willfulness And The Amount Of Damages That Justly Flow From The Willfulness Are Up ToThe Jury Based On The Level Of Defendants’Egregiousness ................................................................................ 163. Factor 3: Defendants Should Be Allowed To IntroduceEvidence Related To Plaintiffs’ Failure To Mitigate .................... 20V. THE COURT SHOULD BIFURCATE THIS CASE ........................................ 22A. The Court Should Bifurcate This Case With Respect To The 44Works ....................................................................................................... 22B. The Court Should Bifurcate This Case With Respect To ThoseWorks For Which Plaintiffs Have Provided Revenue Information ......... 24VI. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 25
Case 2:06-cv-05578-SVW-JC Document 682 Filed 10/10/13 Page 2 of 33 Page ID #:8079
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
ii
D
EFENDANTS
’
S
UPPLEMENTAL
B
RIEF
R
EGARDING
J
URY
I
NSTRUCTIONS
W i n s t o n & S t r a w n L L P
3 3 3 S . G r a n d A v e n u e L o s A n g e l e s , C A 9 0 0 7 1 - 1 5 4 3
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESPage(s)C
ASES
Adobe Sys., Inc. v. Tilley
2010 WL 309249 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2010)......................................................... 8
Arista Records LLC v. Lime Grp. LLC
785 F. Supp. 2d 423 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) .......................................................... 19, 20
Atl. Recording Corp. v. Brennan
534 F. Supp. 2d 278 (D. Conn. 2008) ................................................................ 10
Autodesk, Inc. v. Flores
2011 WL 337836 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2011)....................................................... 12
BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore
517 U.S. 559 (1996) (“
BMW
”) (Breyer, J., concurring) ............................. passim
Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Justin Combs Publ’g
507 F.3d 470 (6th Cir. 2007) .............................................................................. 10
Bryant v. Media Right Prods., Inc.
603 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2010) ........................................................................... 7, 14
Capitol Records, Inc. v. Thomas-Rasset
692 F.3d 899 (8th Cir. 2012) ........................................................................ 15, 16
Centerline Equip. Corp. v. Banner Pers. Serv., Inc.
545 F. Supp. 2d 768 (N.D. Ill. 2008) .................................................................. 11
Coach, Inc. v. Am. Fashion Gift
2013 WL 950938 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2013) ................................................. 7, 20
Coach, Inc. v. Diva Shoes & Accessories
2011 WL 1483436 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2011) ...................................................... 7
Cohorst v. BRE Properties, Inc.
2011 WL 7061923 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2011) ................................................ 8, 11
Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc. v. Sandrow
1988 WL 28249 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 23, 1988) ......................................................... 17
Case 2:06-cv-05578-SVW-JC Document 682 Filed 10/10/13 Page 3 of 33 Page ID #:8080
