Case 2:07-cv-06835-AHM-AJW Document 259 Filed 08/06/2009 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
WESTERN DIVISION

CIVIL MINUTES--GENERAL

Case No. CV 07-6835 AHM (AJWx) Date: August 6, 2009

Title: UMG RECORDINGS, INC., et al. v. DIVX, INC.

===================================================================
PRESENT: HON. ANDREW J. WISTRICH, MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Ysela Benavides
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:

None Present None Present

ORDER REGARDING DIVX’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO

INTERROGATORIES 10, 11, AND 13 AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 11 AND 96

As to interrogatories 10, 11 and 13, the motion is denied. In the

court’s view, these interrogatories should be treated as one
separately countable interrogatory for each of the approximately
2600 allegedly infringed works, each possessing three non-
separately countable subparts. This obviously exceeds the numerical
limit on the number of interrogatories that may be served. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a). To instead treat these as three separately
countable interrogatories, each possessing approximately 2600 non-
separately countable subparts would defeat the purposes of the
numerical 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 of
these interrogatories runs afoul of the principles contained in
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). Insofar as interrogatory 10 is
concerned, Divx has not identified a single example of an allegedly
infringed work that was distributed in appreciable quantities
without notice prior to March 1, 1989, or an allegedly infringed
work that was distributed after March 1, 1989 in a manner that
deprived Divx of access to the knowledge that the work was subject
to copyright. Therefore, collecting the information sought by
interrogatory 10 does not appear to be a sufficiently productive
enterprise that the court would be warranted in imposing the
substantial burden of doing so on UMG. As to interrogatories 11
and 13, UMG already has produced its licenses, and it confirmed
during the hearing that its production is complete. Therefore,
insofar as entities other than UMG are concerned, Divx either has
much of the relevant information or can obtain it for itself about
as readily as can UMG. Insofar as UMG’s own policies and practices
are concerned, the documents UMG already has produced, augmented by
those it is required by this order to produce in response to
request for production 96, should provide Divx with much of the
information it needs.
 Case 2:07-cv-06835-AHM-AJW Document 259 Filed 08/06/2009 Page 2 of 2

As to request for production 11, the motion is granted.

As to request for production 96, the motion is granted, but the

request is narrowed to documents summarizing, describing, or
commenting upon UMG’s actual or prospective policies or practices
from January 1, 2000 to the present.

As to Divx’s contention that UMG has failed to perform a diligent

search for documents responsive to Divx’s request, the motion is
granted as to Kinzler, denied as moot as to Morris in light of
UMG’s representation that Morris’s files already have been searched
and all responsive emails produced [see Joint Stipulation at 33],
and denied as untimely and probably unnecessary as to record label
personnel. Requiring UMG to greatly expand its search at this stage
of the case is not warranted in light of the fact that its
production in response to request for production 96, other
documents previously produced by UMG, and the upcoming depositions
likely will provide Divx with most of the information it is
seeking, particularly during the period that seems most relevant,
that is, January 1, 2005 to the present.

Compliance within 21 days is required.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

cc: Parties

MINUTES FORM 11 Initials of Deputy Clerk________

CIVIL-GEN