Anda di halaman 1dari 20

Case3:10-cv-01282-MMC Document55 Filed06/03/11 Page1 of 20

June 3, 2011

The Honorable Donna M. Ryu


United States District Court
1301 Clay Street
Oakland, California 94612

Re: Io Group, et al. v. GLBT, Ltd. et al., 10-1282 MMC(DMR)


Dear Judge Ryu:

The Parties submit the following:

Defendants’ further submission on issue 3

Defendants have consulted with UK counsel, Mr. Ashley Roughton of Hogarth Chambers,
Lincoln’s Inn, London, who has provided written advice.

We set out in pertinent part the key points of Mr. Roughton’s advice. References to Sections of
the DPA have been added.

“I am a lawyer in the United Kingdom. I have been in intellectual property practice


for about 19 years. I am a member of the bar here and I also specialise in data
protection and privacy law. I practice additionally in both intellectual property and
data protection crime. Of the three significant data protection court cases in the
United Kingdom I have appeared in two.

The Act has eight specific principles concerned with the processing of personal
data. Personal data are, for this purpose, any information relating to an individual
which is or is intended to be processed by means of automatic equipment. There
is an additional requirement that those data must be private in nature though this
requirement is untested. Processing is a very wide term - it can include merely
keeping and (importantly) sending personal data to somebody else. It is however
much wider than that. Put shortly any sort of dealing with computerised
information, including just keeping it (whether on a computer or just a printout or
indeed whether a handwritten antecedent form) is covered by the Act. That
information is called personal data. Those data must relate to a living individual
and must relate to the privacy of that individual. Thus not all data are personal data.

The person who processes personal data is called the data controller and has certain
legal responsibilities. Some if not all of those responsibilities are aimed at
protecting the privacy of the person who is the subject of those personal data - the
data subject. The data subject has rights as against the data controller in relation to
breaches of the eight principles which I have alluded to above.

1
Joint Letter Re Discovery Issues
C- 10-1282 MMC(DMR)
Case3:10-cv-01282-MMC Document55 Filed06/03/11 Page2 of 20

The eight principles are, in summary:- [DPA Part I of Schedule 1]

1. That the privacy of the data subject must be respected and that processing
of such data must be fair (the requirement of legality).
2. That processing may only take place for the purposes previously notified to
the authorities (the requirement of specificity).
3. That processing must not be excessive (the requirement of adequacy).
4. That those data shall be accurate and up to date (the requirement of
completeness).
5. That once data are no longer needed they shall be discarded (the requirement
of necessity).
6. That the requirements of the Act shall be complied with (the requirement of
compliance).
7. That those data shall be kept securely and systems shall be designed to be
secure (the requirement of security)
8. That transfers of data overseas shall only take place where these principles
can be effective (the requirement of reciprocity).
Hence the eight requirements are legality, specificity, adequacy, completeness,
necessity, compliance, security and reciprocity.

In addition where processing is going to take place then the data subject needs to
be told about it in a particular way (this is a quid pro quo the legality requirement)
and a failure to do so is deemed to be a breach of the first principle. This coupled
with the right to ask and be told about one’s personal data are known as the subject
information provisions. In addition this obligation to tell the data subject that
personal data concerning him are being processed along with the requirements of
specificity, adequacy, completeness and necessity are called the non-disclosure
provisions.
Certain disclosures are exempt from the subject information provisions or non
disclosure provisions depending upon the circumstances. For instance disclosure
to the police in order to investigate crimes might strike one as being an example of
a case where effectively tipping off could be problematic. The Act contains
safeguards to deal with this sort of situation. [DPA Sec 29]

Section 35 of the Act states:-

35.–(1) Personal data are exempt from the non-disclosure provisions where
the disclosure is required ... by the order of a court.
(2) Personal data are exempt from the non-disclosure provisions where the
disclosure is necessary–
(a) for the purpose of, or in connection with, any legal proceedings
(including prospective legal proceedings), or
(b) for the purpose of obtaining legal advice,
or is otherwise necessary for the purposes of establishing, exercising or
2
Joint Letter Re Discovery Issues
C- 10-1282 MMC(DMR)
Case3:10-cv-01282-MMC Document55 Filed06/03/11 Page3 of 20

defending legal rights.

However there are three rather serious matters which stand in the way of that
freedom.

…… no discovery at all may be made if it offends the requirement of


specificity. [DPA 2nd principle Part I of Schedule 1]Thus if the defendant’s notification to the
authorities includes no authorisation to transmit data overseas then to do so would offend the
requirement of specificity. However the “order” of the court would (subject to what I say below)
override this as the requirement of specificity is part of the non-disclosure provisions. However
if the court made no order then the data controller cannot just discover voluntarily. To do so
would be a criminal and administrative offence (in
the sense that both the criminal courts and the regulator can impose penal sanctions).
The defendant’s registration with the authorities here cover processing for the
purposes of staff administration, advertising, marketing & public relations,
accounts & records, consultancy and advisory services and administration of
membership records. In each case the specified processing carries the disclaimer
(fairly common in relation to data protection registrations here in the United
Kingdom) that there should be no disclosures outside the European Economic
Area. I have gleaned the foregoing to looking at the publicly accessible data
protection register here in the United Kingdom for a company called GLBT
Limited of Office 44, 151 High Street, Southampton, SO14 2BT. I do not warrant
that the information concerning the status of the register is correct or accurate.
Readers are invited to check for themselves.
[See http://www.ico.gov.uk/ESDWebPages/search.asp insert registration number Z1730026]

Finally (and however) I do not believe that a court in the United States of America
is a court for the purposes of section 35(1) of the Act. My reason for saying this is
not because there is no avenue of redress by way of appeal or because of the
quality of justice - there clearly is an avenue of appeal and there is certainly no
issue concerning the quality of justice - however there is no avenue of redress by
way of reference. The European Legal Order requires that all courts are subject to
the ultimate legal jurisdiction of the General Court (formerly the European Court
of Justice) so far as questions of construction and legal meaning of pieces of
European Legislation are concerned. Recourse to the General Court is a
fundamental right here in Europe. Since the Act derives its ultimate authority from
European instruments (specifically Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of the 24th of October 1995 on The protection of individuals
with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such
data) any issue of construction of the Act and its parent directive must be referable
to the General Court. Courts in the United States of America can make no
references to the General Court since such courts are not courts of the members
states of the European Union (and it is only they which can make references to the
General Court). The word “court” in the Act means, in my view, a court which is
3
Joint Letter Re Discovery Issues
C- 10-1282 MMC(DMR)
Case3:10-cv-01282-MMC Document55 Filed06/03/11 Page4 of 20

subject to the jurisdiction of the General Court.


Hence the defendant cannot make voluntary discovery as to do so would not be
within the remit of its registration and, as I have said, operating outside the remit
of one’s registration is a criminal and administrative offence unless a (European)
court makes a suitable order. However the definition of court means that a court in
the United States of America cannot make an order which has the effect of
overriding the non-disclosure provisions since it is not the court envisaged by
section 35 of the Act. Hence if the court in the United States of America were to
make an order then it would be compelling the defendant to act contrary to the law
here and in rather a serious way. Whether (or not) the court in the United States of
America wishes to do so in the US proceedings is a matter for that court.”
END OF EXCERPTS FROM OPINION

In short, and absent a court order from a UK or European court, defendants can not disclose
protected data.

This is particularly the case given the sensitive nature of the data, i.e. the identity of gay men
viewing on-line pornography and the inevitable risk that they will be subject to litigation
themselves. The risk is particularly grave given the litigation tactics of at least Plaintiff IO
Group, Inc.

By way of example, in IO Group, Inc. v. DOES 1-435 Case 3:10-cv-04382, the Court was
troubled by Plaintiffs misuse of the joinder and pre-service discovery rules in their attempt to
allege a non-existent conspiracy against numerous alleged infringers. See Order of Judge Susan
Illston of February 3rd, 2011 Case 3:10-cv-04382 document 42 at pages 9 and 10 in particular.

Even more troubling is document Case 3:10-cv-04378-EDL Document 25 Filed 05/19/11


comprising a letter written by defendant Mayra Gonzalez to Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D.
Laporte and complaining about a letter written her by IO Group’s counsel. This sorry story is
more fully, and perhaps more frankly explained in an online article appearing at
http://torrentfreak.com/u-s-p2p-lawsuit-shows-signs-of-a-pirate-honeypot-110601/

Plaintiff’s counsel simply wrote a letter, styled Limited Settlement Opportunity, demanding
$1875.00 from an obvious innocent infringer, [Plaintiff’s pornography was hidden, by
somebody, in a file relating to classical music] & stating how copyright law provides for
damages from $750 to $30,000 and, if willful, up to $150,000.00 in damages per infringed work,
and of course neglecting to state that damages can be reduced for innocent infringers.

This is precisely the type of abuse of personal data that the DPA is designed to protect against.

Defendant’s position for unresolved issue 4.

The parties have met and conferred. As already stated, Defendants do not create many records, in
large part due to constant threats made by lawyers in the United States.

4
Joint Letter Re Discovery Issues
C- 10-1282 MMC(DMR)
Case3:10-cv-01282-MMC Document55 Filed06/03/11 Page5 of 20

PLAINTIFFS’ STATEMENT

Plaintiff’s Introductory Remarks - It is clear that Defendants will go to any length to prevent
discovery in this matter, and at this point, the Plaintiffs are comfortable stating that the
Defendants have lied to this Court and that their counsel either knowingly is submitting such lies
to this Court, or is willfully blind to the same. Defense counsel is withholding documents from
Plaintiffs. Defendants have destroyed evidence. Defense counsel seems to be deliberately trying
to limit the time Plaintiff has to respond to its arguments. This is the third joint letter the parties
have submitted to the Court on a Friday evening. In each case, Plaintiff’s requested early drafts
from Defendants and on two of those occasions Defense Counsel withheld his portion of the
letter until the last minute (respectively, Thursday 5/5 8:56 pm; Tues. 5/17 at 2:32 pm; and
Friday 6/3, 1:56 pm). Today’s tardiness is the most extreme yet. The Court requested briefing
on a complex issue of international law. Mr. Capp an English Barrister himself, found the issues
so complex he engaged a specialist in U.K privacy law to prepare his response. Mr. Capp did
not present his arguments to Plaintiff’s counsel until Friday morning and even then, he only
presented a summary of his argument, which still contained no reference to specific law or
citations to Court opinions interpreting the law. He did not send his detailed position until 1:30
in the afternoon. Mr. Capp then expects Plaintiffs’ Counsel to research and rebut these claims
and return a finalized letter for his review prior to submission to the Court today.

Plaintiffs understand that one of the goals of requiring joint letter writing is to encourage parties
to examine the issues jointly prior to submitting them to the Court. However, this goal is
frustrated when one of the parties waits until the last minute to present its arguments. It
eliminates the back and forth that would likely help narrow issues. Plaintiffs’ counsel are
frustrated that the parties are submitting this letter in a form that really is more like two letters
stuck together, than one letter jointly drafted. However, Plaintiffs’ Counsel sees no viable option
as it began writing this letter at 10:00 am on Friday morning with so little input from opposing
counsel.

U.K. Privacy Law - When Defendants’ letter finally arrived at 1:30, Plaintiff could hardly
understand the long delay. Defendants still offer absolutely no analysis of the law upon which
they base their argument. Defendants simply present comments from a UK solicitor who in the
end says nothing more than, “[t]he word “court” in the Act means, in my view, a court which is
subject to the jurisdiction of the General Court.” With respect to the Barrister, his view, without
citations to Courts who agree with him, is valueless. Moreover, Mr. Ashley Roughton is not
subject to this Court’s displine if he is lying, but given the dearth of real analysis, it appears to be
so void of actual conclusions, that it could not matter. Even if Defendants had provided support
for protecting data generally from discovery in U.S. Courts, which they have not, they have not
provided any explanation as to what data they seek to protect or how the U.K. law would
specifically apply to the data in this case.

In light of Defendants failure provide support from the UK Courts, Plaintiffs’ position remains
that UK law is largely irrelevant. U.S. Court after U.S. Court has held Defendants have the
burden of proving the foreign law actually bars production, and these Defendants have not. In re
Sealed Case, 263 U.S. App. D.C. 357, 825 F.2d 494 (D.C. Cir. 1987); See also, AccessData
5
Joint Letter Re Discovery Issues
C- 10-1282 MMC(DMR)
Case3:10-cv-01282-MMC Document55 Filed06/03/11 Page6 of 20

Corp. v. ALSTE Techs. GmbH, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4566, 4-5 (D. Utah Jan. 21, 2010). More
importantly, even if the DPA prevented the release of the documents, which it does not, this
Court has the authority to order the documents produced. Columbia Pictures Indus. v. Bunnell,
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46364, 49-50 (C.D. Cal. May 29, 2007)(“[E]ven if the [foreign data
protection] statute applies and is read to prohibit defendants' preservation or production of the
[requested records], it is well settled that foreign blocking statutes do not deprive an American
court of the power to order a party subject to its jurisdiction to produce. Citing, Richmark Corp.
v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468, 1474 (9th Cir. 1992)).

If this Court is interested in actual analysis of the UK data protection act, the Plaintiffs should be
given the opportunity to submit Defendants limited comments to its own UK counsel in order to
rebut Defendant's legal position. However, if this Court reviews the case law submitted by the
Plaintiffs, it will be clear that such an exercise is unnecessary under U.S. law, and it would only
serve to obfuscate the issues, delay justice, and otherwise reward the defendants for their lack of
ethics and candor.

As the Court analysis this issue further, Plaintiffs urge the Court to consider the fact that
Defendants have produced virtually no other documentary evidence in this matter. This makes
the requested documents even more important and calls into question Defendants’ motives in
refusing to produce it.

The Doctor’s Letter - The Court’s order allows no further briefing on the issue of the location
of the depositions. However, the Court requested an update on Mr. Compton’s condition in the
form of a letter from his treating physician. Although Defense counsel has received the letter,
he, refused to provide a copy to Plaintiff in spite of repeated requests. Mr. Capp states, “I'll file
the doctors letter as separate document as the judge has stated that there shall be no more
briefing and argument on the depositions.” Regardless of the contents of the letter, or whether
the contents require comment form Plaintiff’s Counsel, Mr. Capp’s intentional withholding of
the letter is inexcusable and demonstrates Mr. Capp’s lack of interest in working towards
resolution of discovery matters. In any event, the letter is only relevant to David Compton’s
medical condition, and thus with or without this letter, the Court is competent to rule on John
Compton’s deposition.

Note: Having now seen the letter which Mr. Capp filed at 5:00 on Friday afternoon, it is clear
why he previously withheld it. The letter contains Mr. Compton’s opinion on his ability to travel
- not the Doctor’s opinion. Moreover, the Compton’s further call their veracity into question by
adopting a new excuse (general travel anxiety) as the old excuse (kidney stones) fades away.

Unresolved Issue Number 3 - The fact that Defendants have never objected to Production
Requests 7, 9, and 11, highlights the fact that those documents are indeed relevant. Defendants
have never described in a privilege log or anywhere else the documents in their possession that
are responsive to the requests. With no such description forthcoming, Plaintiff’s efforts to
discuss the relevancy of actual documents will be limited. Plaintiffs focus on the relevancy of
the request.

6
Joint Letter Re Discovery Issues
C- 10-1282 MMC(DMR)
Case3:10-cv-01282-MMC Document55 Filed06/03/11 Page7 of 20

Through Request Number 7, Plaintiff’s seek any billing records related to the websites
Defendants operate. Primarily these documents are relevant in proving that Defendants received
a direct financial benefit from the infringing activity - part of the analysis for vicarious liability
and for Defendants’ eligibility for the safe harbor provisions set forth at 17 USC 512 (c)(1)(B).
Further, Defendants have only produced a limited number of documents (See the discussion set
forth at Unresolved Issue Number 4 below). The documents are relevant to Plaintiffs attempt to
understand the scope of Defendants’ enterprises. Defendants have repeatedly denied personal
jurisdiction in this Court and have boldly asserted that they will resist collection on any judgment
Plaintiffs obtain. Thus, the location of its customers, especially those in the United States is
relevant. Since Defendants have not produced any meaningful documents, Plaintiffs must and
will seek discovery from a number of Defendants’ customers, particularly those in the United
States, to discover what type of communications Defendants have had with their customers,
particularly communications regarding issues of copyright infringement, a repeat infringer
policy, and billing/financial benefit. Because, a large number of on line users provide bogus
personal information, particularly in the realm of adult websites, Plaintiff’s require information
that customers cannot fake. Because Defendants are unable to make money unless billing
records are accurate, these are the most likely records actually to lead to discoverable evidence
regarding Defendants customers.

In order to be eligible for the safe harbor provisions of 17 USC 512, Defendants must have had
in place a repeat infringer policy. Through Request Number 9, Plaintiffs seek any documents
showing that Defendants have terminated services for members who violated their repeat
infringer policy. This request would include e-mails sent to repeat infringers terminating their
service – which Defendants deny having. However, the most reliable indicator of whether
Defendants continued to benefit from retaining a repeat infringer as a customer is to examine the
billing records. Again, because it is easy to provide fake information in other contexts, the
billing records become exceedingly important. In the absence of any other records, the
documents responsive to this request become more critical as these records are apparently the
only records Defendants have not destroyed.

By Request Number 11, Plaintiffs demanded documents relating to Defendants repeat infringer
policy. Defendants replied that responsive documents exist that list repeat infringers who
Defendants canceled. However, Defendants refuse to provide those documents claiming UK and
EC privacy laws protect them from disclosure. These documents are relevant for the same
reasons describe in Requests Numbers 7 and 9. To the extent that responsive records contain
information specific and private to an individual, such information is necessary to ensure that
Defendants do not simply provide a list of made up names or accounts. Receiving individualized
verifiable information is the only way to establish that Defendants’ repeat infringer policy was
real.

Unresolved Issue Number 4 - Counsel met and conferred telephonically to discuss several
outstanding discovery responses, which Plaintiff addresses individually below. During the
conversation Plaintiff’s Counsel inquired as to why Defense Counsel had neither agreed to the
provisions of a stipulated protective order Plaintiff previously provided, nor proposed any
changes to the draft stipulation. Defense counsel’s reply was that no matter what, Plaintiffs are
7
Joint Letter Re Discovery Issues
C- 10-1282 MMC(DMR)
Case3:10-cv-01282-MMC Document55 Filed06/03/11 Page8 of 20

not going to receive any of the requested information. Plaintiff’s counsel pressed further, but
Defense Counsel was unable to voice any legitimate reason for not implementing the proposed
stipulated order - in spite of the fact that Defendants’ made production of documents in
responses to certain discovery requests contingent upon entry of a protective order. See, Joint
Letter, Docket No. 52, Page 9, ¶3.

Issue Number Four deals with two issues. The first is Defendant’s promise to deliver responsive
documents, which they have failed to deliver. Parties attach hereto as a permitted exhibit a copy
of Plaintiff’s Document Requests and GLBT’s responses. (Plaintiff’s served identical document
requests on Defendant Mash and New, Ltd. requesting documents relating to the websites
jerkyourtube.com and gayforit.com and request identical relief for those requests.) The relevant
document requests include, Request No. 27, 29, 30, 31, and 32. During the meet and confer Mr.
Capp again promised to produce documents but agreed to no production date. Plaintiffs seek an
order compelling Defendants to produce all documents responsive to these requests within seven
days of the Court Order.

The second issue within Issue Number Four is that Defendants unrealistically claim to have no
responsive documents to certain requests. With regard to Request for Productions 1, 4, and 12
Defendants have replied that they have no responsive documents.

Request 1 demands all documents that refer to Plaintiffs; Request 4 demands all documents that
refer to Defendants’ websites; and Request 12 demands all documents that refer to cease and
desist letters or take down notices Defendants received in relation to the websites they operate.
Defendants claim they have no documents responsive to these requests. Request Number 2
seeks documents that reference Defendants’ websites. Defendants respond that the only
responsive documents they have are the websites themselves viewable by the public.

Given the broadness of these requests, Plaintiff finds Defendants claim simply unbelievable. As
far as Plaintiffs are aware, the only business the Defendants engage in is the operation of the
three websites at issue in this litigation. An important element of the operation of these websites,
as evidenced by Defendant’s own statements, is the removal of content at the request of
copyright holders, including Plaintiffs. The only way Defendants could truthfully claim to have
no records responsive to these requests is if Defendants immediately delete every
correspondence they send or receive – including correspondence and documents sent or received
since Plaintiffs put them on notice that this litigation was likely. Defendants have numerous
venders, with whom they carry on business including credit card processors, hosting companies,
advertisers, etc. It would be literally impossible to operate a business without any documents as
Defendants expect Plaintiffs and the Court to believe.

Defendants are under a duty to preserve evidence that might be reasonably relevant to the
litigation. Moreover, they are aware of this duty and have been so since at least as early as
August 12, 2008 when Plaintiff Io Group, Inc. sent them notice of their duty to preserve. On its
face, Defendant’s explanation of why they do not maintain records (i.e. because of threats of
litigation by U.S. attorneys) admits a defiant disregard for their duty to preserve evidence.

8
Joint Letter Re Discovery Issues
C- 10-1282 MMC(DMR)
Case3:10-cv-01282-MMC Document55 Filed06/03/11 Page9 of 20

Defendants have admitted to the intentional destruction of documents relevant to this litigation,
thus discovery sanctions are warranted. Plaintiff’s currently seek an order from the Court
warning Defendants to produce all responsive documents or risk sanctions including
presumptions that any destroyed evidence contained culpatory evidence.

Plaintiffs’ Closing Remarks - Defense counsel has violated the Court’s page and exhibit
limitation by incorporating large amounts of material by reference. Moreover, Defense Counsel
in a manner unbefitting a member of the bar, attacks Plaintiff’s Counsel by referencing an article
appearing on torrent freak - a blog dedicated to online piracy. The article sets forth a myriad of
lies and unsubstantiated accusations that Mr. Capp presumably is unwilling to make himself.
Nonetheless, Mr. Capp introduces the highly prejudicial and completely non-probative
statements in an attempt to discredit Plaintiff’s counsel. Plaintiffs request that the Court ignore
this hearsay evidence.

Respectfully submitted.

June 3, 2011 /s/ Jonathan Charles Capp


JONATHAN CHARLES CAPP
Attorney for Defendants

June 3, 2011 /s/ D. Gill Sperlein


D. GILL SPERLEIN
THE LAW OFFICE OF D. GILL SPERLEIN

June 3, 2011 /s/ Marc Randazza


MARC RANDAZZA
GENERAL COUNSEL
LIBERTY MEDIA HOLDINGS, LLC

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

9
Joint Letter Re Discovery Issues
C- 10-1282 MMC(DMR)
Case3:10-cv-01282-MMC Document55 Filed06/03/11 Page10 of 20

1 Jonathan Charles Capp (177585)


2 4317 Silver Spring Way
Oceanside, CA 92057
3
Tel. (760) 231 6498
4 Fax. (760) 231 6272
5
Email: jonccapp@cox.net

6 Attorney for Defendants


7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
10

11 10 GROUP, INC., a California Case No. CV-10-1282 MMC


corporation; CHANNEL ONE
12
RELEASING, INC., a California
13 corporation; and LIBERTY MEDIA DEFENDANT GLBT LTD’s
HOLDINGS, LLC, a California RESPONSES TO FIRST SET OF
14
corporation, REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
15

16 Plaintiffs,
17
vs.
18
GLBT, Ltd, a British limited
19
company; et al.
20

21
Defendants.

22
TO PLAINTIFFS AND THEIR ATTORNEY OF RECORD
23
Defendant GLBT LTD, (‘answering party”) hereby responds to Plaintiffs’ Request for
24
production (Set One) as follows;
25

26

27

28
REQUEST NO.1

RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS (SET ONE)

-1-
Case3:10-cv-01282-MMC Document55 Filed06/03/11 Page11 of 20

1 Produce all DOCUMENTS in DEFENDANT’S possession that reference Plaintiffs Liberty


2 Media holdings d/b/a/ Corbin Fisher, IO Group Inc. d/b/a Titan Media, or Channel One
3 Releasing.

4 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.1:

5
None.
REQUEST NO.2
6
Produce all DOCUMENTS in DEFENDANT’S possession that reference Gayforit.com website.
7
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.2:
8
All pages of the website located at www.gayforit.com
9
REQUEST NO.3:
10
Produce all DOCUMENTS in DEFENDANT’S possession that reference the ownership interests
11 of any person in Gayforit.com.
12 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.3:
13 These will be produced in the immediate future.

14

15
REQUEST NO.4
Produce all DOCUMENTS referencing allegations of copyright infringement occurring on
16
gayforit.com, including but not limited DMCA notices of infringement; correspondence (email
17
or other communications) regarding infringements, or mailed to GLBT’s physical address;
18
and/or other intellectual property complaints directed to GLBT in any form whatsoever.
19
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.4:
20
None.
21 REQUEST NO.5
22 Produce any documents that YOU intend to rely upon in this Action.
23 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.5:
24 All pages of the websites located at www.gayforit.com, www.itsallgay.com and/or

25
www.jerkyourtube.com websites. Document files comprising the COPCMS filtering system
used by Defendant and which will be produced when available in usable form. Exhibit A hereto
26
and any documents that a UK or other European court(s) authorize to be produced. Also various
27
videos of Plaintiffs in their custody possession and control.
28

RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS (SET ONE)

-2-
Case3:10-cv-01282-MMC Document55 Filed06/03/11 Page12 of 20

3 REQUEST NO.6:

4 Produce DOCUMENTS sufficient to show your corporate organization.

5
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.6:
These will be produced in the immediate future.
6

7
REQUEST NO.7:
8
Produce all billing files related to Gayforit.com, including but not limited records of billing
9
statements, the address and name of the recipient’s mailing address, billing logs and records of
10
payments, including but not limited to the credit card or banking information on file and the
11 individual’s name and address associated with the account.
12 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.7:
13 All non privileged documents, see attached log, will be produced for inspection provided any

14 production does not violate UK and European data protection legislation and/or the privacy

15
rights of third parties. Defendants will require European and/UK court orders to produce.
REQUEST NO.8:
16
Produce all DOCUMENTS that YOU have provided to any expert witness or potential witness in
17
regard to this action.
18
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.8:
19
None at this time.
20
REQUEST NO.9:
21 Produce DOCUMENTS showing that YOU have terminated services for members who violated
22 YOUR repeat copyright infringement policy (or any equivalent policy).
23 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.9:
24 All non privileged documents, see attached log, will be produced for inspection provided any

25
production does not violate UK and European data protection legislation and/or the privacy
rights of third parties. Defendants will require European and/UK court orders to produce.
26
REQUEST NO. 10
27
All DOCUMENTS that constitute, describe, refer to, or relate to reports identifying the amount
28
of traffic, hits, and /or visits to Gayforit.com.

RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS (SET ONE)

-3-
Case3:10-cv-01282-MMC Document55 Filed06/03/11 Page13 of 20

1 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.10:


2 None.
3 REQUEST NO. 11

4 All DOCUMENTS that constitute, refer to or relate to GLBT’s policies regarding repeat

5
infringers, including all original, draft, subsequent, or revised versions of such DOCUMENTS.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.11:
6
The document located at www.gayforit.com/terms and documents listing repeat infringers who
7
have been canceled and that a UK or other European court(s) authorize to be produced.
8

9
REQUEST NO. 12
10
All DOCUMENTS that constitute, refer to or relate to cease and desist letters or DMCA take
11 down notices requesting that GLBT remove or block access to material appearing on
12 Gayforit.com.
13 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.12:
14 None.

15
REQUEST NO. 13:
All DOCUMENTS with reference to written policies, procedures and guidelines related to
16
GLBT’s computers or computer systems including, without limitation, back up schedules and
17
procedures, electronic retention and preservation schedules, and file naming conventions.
18
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.13:
19
None.
20
REQUEST NO. 14:
21 Produce all DOCUMENTS required to be identified by DEFENDANT’s in its initial disclosures
22 under Fed. Rule Civ. Pro 26.
23 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.14:
24 All documents identified and produced pursuant to these requests.

25
REQUEST NO. 15:
26
Produce all DOCUMENTS that constitute, refer to or relate to reports identifying the amount of
27
daily traffic, hits, and/or visits to the WEBSITE[S] since YOU began operating the
28
WEBSITE[S].

RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS (SET ONE)

-4-
Case3:10-cv-01282-MMC Document55 Filed06/03/11 Page14 of 20

1 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.15:


2 None.
3

4 REQUEST NO. 16:

5
Produce all DOCUMENTS that constitute, refer to or relate to YOUR procedures for approving
or rejecting content submitted to the website[s] for publication by and through the WEBSITE[S],
6
including all original, draft, subsequent, or revised versions of such DOCUMENTS.
7
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.16:
8
The webpages located at:
9
http://www.gayforit.com/terms
10
http://www.gayforit.com/advertise
11 REQUEST NO. 17:
12 Produce all DOCUMENTS that constitute, refer to or relate to YOUR procedures for processing
13 and handling content once submitted to the website[s] for publication by and through the

14 WEBSITE[S].

15
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.17:
The webpages located at http://www.gayforit.com/terms
16

17
REQUEST NO. 18:
18
Produce all DOCUMENTS that constitute, refer to or relate to press releases distributed by or on
19
behalf of YOU or the WEBSITE[S].
20
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.18:
21 None.
22 REQUEST NO. 19:
23 Produce all DOCUMENTS that discuss if or how 18 USC Sec. 2257 and implementing
24 regulations at 28 CFR 75.1 et seq. relate to YOUR operation of the WEBSITE[S].

25
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.19:
None.
26

27
REQUEST NO. 20:
28

RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS (SET ONE)

-5-
Case3:10-cv-01282-MMC Document55 Filed06/03/11 Page15 of 20

1 Produce all DOCUMENTS that constitute refer to or relate to YOUR policies for preventing
2 child pornography from being published by and through the WEBSITE[S].
3 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.20:

4 None.

5
REQUEST NO. 21:
Produce all DOCUMENTS that constitute, refer to or relate to YOUR polices for obtaining proof
6
that individuals appearing in explicit material submitted for publication by and through the
7
WEBSITE[S]. were over eighteen years of age at the time the material was produced.
8
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.21:
9
None.
10
REQUEST NO. 22:
11 Produce all DOCUMENTS that constitute, refer to or relate to YOUR policies for ensuring that
12 any sexually explicit material transmitted by and through the WEBSITE[S] was properly labeled
13 with information as to where the producer of such content maintained records proving the

14 individuals appearing in the material were over eighteen years of age at the time the material was

15
produced.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.22:
16
None.
17
REQUEST NO. 23:
18
Produce all DOCUMENTS that constitute refer to or relate to YOUR policies for obtaining proof
19
that individuals submitting material for publication by and through the WEBSITE[S] are
20
authorized to do so.
21
RESPONSE TO REQUEST No. 23.
22
None.
23
REQUEST NO. 24:
24
Produce all DOCUMENTS that constitute refer to or relate to YOUR ability to discover the true
25
identity of individuals who submit content for publication by and through the WEBSITE[S].
26
RESPONSE TO REQUEST No. 24.
27
None.
28
REQUEST NO. 25:

RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS (SET ONE)

-6-
Case3:10-cv-01282-MMC Document55 Filed06/03/11 Page16 of 20

1 Produce all DOCUMENTS that constitute, refer to or relate to YOUR policies regarding
2 identifying and removing material from the WEBSITE[S] that has not been authorized for such
3 use by the copyright holder, and including all original, draft, subsequent, or revised versions of
4 such DOCUMENTS.
5 RESPONSE TO REQUEST No. 25.
6 The webpages located at http://www.gayforit.com/terms
7 http://www.gayforit.com/advertise
8 REQUEST NO. 26:
9 Produce electronic copies, in a readily viewable format, of all files removed or blocked from the

10 WEBSITE[S] at the request of Plaintiffs.

11 RESPONSE TO REQUEST No. 26.


12 No such documents exist.

13 REQUEST NO. 27:


14 Produce all DOCUMENTS that constitute, refer to or relate to YOUR ability to monetize the
15 WEBSITE[S] including, without limitation, through advertising revenue, video on demand fee

16 sharing, subscriptions, or any other means.

17 RESPONSE TO REQUEST No. 27.


18 All non privileged documents, see attached log, will be produced for inspection provided any

19 production does not violate UK and European data protection legislation and/or the privacy
20 rights of third parties. Defendants will require European and/UK court orders to produce.
21 REQUEST NO. 28:
22 Produce all DOCUMENTS explaining how the WEBSITE[S] and each of their [its] features

23 operates or was intended to operate, including without limitation, such DOCUMENTS given to

24 employees or contractors tasked with designing, programming or constructing the WESBITE[S].

25 RESPONSE TO REQUEST No. 28.


26 None.

27 REQUEST NO. 29:

28 Produce all DOCUMENTS identifying computers, equipment, and software used in conjunction
with the operation of the WEBSITE[S}.
RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS (SET ONE)

-7-
Case3:10-cv-01282-MMC Document55 Filed06/03/11 Page17 of 20

1 RESPONSE TO REQUEST No. 29.


2 None-other than the COPCMS system which will be produced when in usable form.
3 REQUEST NO. 30:
4 Produce all DOCUMENTS relating to any technology YOU use for detecting infringement on
5 the WEBSITE[S], including without limitation, those describing policies and procedures.
6 RESPONSE TO REQUEST No. 30
7
None-other than the COPCMS system which will be produced when in usable form.
8

9
REQUEST NO. 31:
10
Produce all DOCUMENTS relating to any technology YOU ever purchased, developed, or
11
implemented that uses digital fingerprinting technology including without limitation procedures
12
for implementing such technologies and underlying source code for such technology.
13
RESPONSE TO REQUEST No. 31
14
None-other than the COPCMS system which will be produced when in usable form.
15

16
REQUEST NO. 32:
17
Produce all DOCUMENTS relating to or referencing the development, purchase, or
18
implementation of digital fingerprinting technology in connection with the operation of the
19
WEBSITE[S].
20
RESPONSE TO REQUEST No. 32
21

22 None-other than the COPCMS system which will be produced when in usable form.

23
REQUEST NO. 33:
24
Produce all DOCUMENTS that refer to or relate to YOUR policy of awarding free subscriptions
25
to individuals who provide video files to the WESBITE[S], including without limitation , 1)
26
communications to or from individuals to whom YOU provided or to whom you denied a free
27
subscription under the policy; and 2) descriptions of what type of content made one eligible for a
28
free subscription.

RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS (SET ONE)

-8-
Case3:10-cv-01282-MMC Document55 Filed06/03/11 Page18 of 20

1 RESPONSE TO REQUEST No. 33


See website located at www.gayforit.com otherwise none. System automatically upgrades users
2
for 7 days when they upload a video.
3

4 REQUEST NO. 34:


5 Produce all DOCUMENTS describing how video files are indexed on the WEBSITE[S].
6 including without limitation relevant source code.
7 RESPONSE TO REQUEST No. 34
8
All pages of the websites located at www.gayforit.com, www.itsallgay.com and/or
9
www.jerkyourtube.com
10

11
REQUEST NO. 35:
12
Produce all DOCUMENTS showing income or revenue YOU earned by the operation of the
13
WEBSITE[S].
14
RESPONSE TO REQUEST No. 35
15
All non privileged documents, see attached log, will be produced for inspection provided any
16
production does not violate UK and European data protection legislation and/or the privacy
17
rights of third parties. Defendants will require European or UK court order to produce. Otherwise
18
see Accounts for GBLT attached as Exhibit A.
19

20
REQUEST NO. 36:
21
Produce any DOCUMENTS that constitute, describe, refer to or relate to any negotiations to sell
22
or trade user traffic form the WEBSITE[S] to any other website, company or other third party.
23
RESPONSE TO REQUEST No. 36
24

25
No such documents exist.

26 REQUEST NO. 37:


27 Produce all DOCUMENTS that constitute, describe , refer to or relate to the effectiveness or
28 feasibility of electronic filtering for particular types of files in order to keep such files off of the
WEBSITE[S].
RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS (SET ONE)

-9-
Case3:10-cv-01282-MMC Document55 Filed06/03/11 Page19 of 20

1 RESPONSE TO REQUEST No. 37


2
None-other than the COPCMS system which will be produced when in usable form.
3

4
REQUEST NO. 38:
5
Produce all DOCUMENTS that constitute, describe, or refer to YOUR Terms of Use.
6
RESPONSE TO REQUEST No. 38
7
See webpages located at www.gayforit.com/terms.
8

10
Dated: 3/17/2011 _______________/s/__________________
Jonathan C. Capp, Attorney for Plaintiffs
11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS (SET ONE)

-10-
Case3:10-cv-01282-MMC Document55 Filed06/03/11 Page20 of 20

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS (SET ONE)

-11-