Hotfile _ Plaintiffs' Opposition to Google Motion
|Views: 1,678
|Likes: 1
Published by TorrentFreak_
More info:
Availability:
See more
See less
Case1:11-cv-20427-KMWDocument372EnteredonFLSDDocket
03/19/2012
Page1of7
UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURTSOUTHERNDISTRICTOFFLORIDACASENO.11-20427-WILLIAMS/TURNOFFDISNEYENTERPRISES,INC.,TWENTIETHCENTURYFOXFILMCORPORATION,UNIVERSALCITYSTUDIOSPRODUCTIONSLLLP,COLUMBIAPICTURESINDUSTRIES,INC.,andWARNERBROS.ENTERTAINMENTINC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.HOTFILECORP.,ANTONTITOV,andDOES1-10.
Defendants.
____________________________~I
HOTFILECORP.,
Counterclaimant,
v.WARNERBROS.ENTERTAINMENTINC.,
Counterdefendant.
I
------------------------------
PLAINTIFFS'OPPOSITIONTOGOOGLE'SMOTIONFORLEAVETOFILE
AMICUSCURIAE
BRIEF
Case1:11-cv-20427-KMWDocument372EnteredonFLSDDocket
03/19/2012
Page2of7
TheCourtshoulddenynon-partyGoogle'srequesttosubmititsproposed
amicus
briefbecauseitmerelyduplicatesHotfile'spositioninitsmotionforsummaryjudgment.Google'sproposedbriefappearstobepartofasystematiceffortbyGoogle,itselfadefendantinongoingcopyrightinfringementcases,toinfluencethedevelopmentofthelawtoGoogle'sownadvantage-aswellasaneffortbyHotfile(whosecounselalsorepresentGoogle)tocircumventitspagelimits.GoogleisactingasapartisanadvocateforHotfile,makingargumentsthatHotfilehasorcouldhavemadeinitsownoppositiontosummaryjudgment.Thepartiesherearewell-representedandhavetheincentiveandwherewithaltomakealltheargumentsthecourtwillneed.AlthoughGooglepurportsnottotakeapositionregardingsummaryjudgmenthere,Googleunmistakablyseeksarulingagainstplaintiffs.Google'smotionshouldbedenied.
ARGUMENT
Where,ashere,anon-partyseekstopressapartisanpositionthatservesmerelytocircumventthepagelimitsoftheparties,adistrictcourt's"acceptanceofan...
amicuscuriae
shouldbeallowedonlysparingly,unlessthe
amicus
hasaspecialinterest,orunlesstheCourtfeelsthatexistingcounselneedassistance."
News
&
Sun-SentinelCo.
v.
Cox,
700F.Supp.30,31(S.D.Fla.1988)(quotationmarksomitted;ellipsisinoriginal);
seealsoSierraClub
v.
Fed.EmergencyMgmt.Agency,
Civ.
A.
No.H-07-0608,2007U.S.Dist.LEXIS84230,at*3-4(S.D.Tex.Nov.14,2007)(same).Moreover,adistrictcourt"should...considerwhethertheindividualororganizationseekingtofilethe
amicus
briefisanadvocateforoneoftheparties,"
SierraClub,
2007U.S.Dist.LEXIS84230,at*6,andthecourtshould"denypermissiontofilean
amicus
briefthatessentiallyduplicatesaparty'sbrief."
VoicesforChoices
v.
Ill.BellTel.Co.,
339F.3d542,544(7thCir.2003)(Posner,J.);
seealsoGlassroth
v.
Moore,
347F.3d916,919(l1thCir.2003)(citing
Voices/orChoices
withapprovalforits"susp[icion]that
amicus
briefsareoftenusedasameansofevadingthepagelimitationsonaparty'sbriefs").Here,Google'sproposedbriefisimproperfortheseveryreasons.Ratherthanactingoutofany'specialinterest,'Googleismerelyadvocatingforitsownself-interestandthatofHotfile.Googleishardlyadispassionatepartyontheseissues:ititselfisafrequentdefendantinonlinecopyrightinfringementcaseswhereGoogle'sownentitlementtoinvoketheDMCAsafeharborshasbeencalledintoquestion-including,asitadmits,incasescurrentlypending.
See,e.g.,ViacomInt'l,Inc.
v.
YouTube,Inc.,
No.10-3270-cv(2dCir.)(pendingclaimthatGoogle'ssubsidiaryYouTube,Inc.inducedandhadredflagknowledgeofinfringementofthousandsof
1
Case1:11-cv-20427-KMWDocument372EnteredonFLSDDocket
03/19/2012
Page3of7
copyrightedworks);
FootballAss'nPremiereLeagueLtd.v.YouTube,Inc.,
No.10-3342-cv(2dCir.)(same).Furthermore,althoughGoog1eclaimsthatitseeksmerelyto"offer[]amorecompleteperspectiveonthelegalissuesraisedin[theparties'summaryjudgment]motions,"andthatit"takesnopositiononhowtheCourtshouldresolvetheparties'respectivemotions"(Dkt.355at2),Google'sproposed
amicus
briefisentirelyone-sidedandechoesinmanyrespectstheargumentsintroducedinHotfile'ssummaryjudgmentbrief.GoogleattacksPlaintiffs'summaryjudgmentoppositionasa"crabbedapproachtothe[DMCA],"andseekstodistinguishPlaintiffs'legalauthority.Dkt.355-1(proposed
amicus
brief)at5
&
n.7.Googlealsoargues,
interalia,
that"[t]hisCourtshouldlikewiserejectanyeffortsbyplaintiffstodepriveHotfileofthesection512(c)safeharbor..."
(id.
at9);andthat"theCourtshouldbenotbemisled"byPlaintiffs
(id.
at11).GoogleplainlyseeksarulingagainstPlaintiffswithoutfullknowledgeofthecontrollingfacts,manyofwhichinthiscaseareunderseal.ThereislittledifferencebetweenGoogle'spositionandHotfile's-whichisunsurprisinggivenbothentities'identicalinterestinhavingcourtsinterprettheDMCAsafeharborsasexpansivelyaspossible.Forexample,bothGoogleandHotfileassertthattheDMCAsafeharborsshouldbeconstruedbroadlyandthatthe"redflag"knowledgeexceptionshouldbeconfinedtotheverynarrowcaseofspecific,file-by-fileknowledge.
Compare,e.g.,
Dkt.355-1(proposed
amicus
brief)at7-11("DMCA'sknowledgeprovisionsrequirethataserviceproviderhavefailedtoactaftergainingknowledgeof
particular
infringingmaterial")(emphasisadded)
with
HotfileBr.at13("the'apparentknowledge'test-alsoknownasthe'red-flag'test-requiresawarenessof'factsorcircumstances'relatedto
specific
items")(emphasisadded).Hotfileiswellrepresentedandentirelycapableofraisingthesekindsofargumentsonitsown.Google'sproposedfilingwouldeffectivelyallowHotfile-
whoseleadcounselrepresentsGoogleasadefendantinotherinfringement-relatedmatters'-
tocircumventthecourt'spagelimitationsandget17additionalpagestoarguetheirviewoftheDMCA.ThisclearlyprejudicesPlaintiffs,whohavepresentedtheirargumentswithinthepagelimitsimposedbytheCourt.
1
SeeE-MicroCorporationv.Google,Inc.,
No,6:ll-cv-00465-LED(E.D.Tex.)(twoofHotfile'spresentcounsel,includingitsleadcounsel,representingGoogle);
PurpleLeafLLCv.Google,Inc.,
No.6:11-cv-00355(E.D.Tex.)(same).
2
Activity (3)
Filters
