Ira P. Rothken,Esq.(StateBar. No.

160029)
ROTHKEN LAW FIRM
2 1050NorthgateDr., Suite 520
SanRafael,CA 94903
3 Telephone:(415) 924-4250
Facsimile: (415) 924-2905
4
~indy A. Cohn,Esq. (StateBar No. 145997)
5 Fred yon Lohmann,Esq.(StateBar No. 192657)
Robin D. Gross,Esq.(StateBar No. 200701)
6 ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION
454 Shotwell Street
7 SanFrancisco,CA 94110
Telephone:(415) 436-9333xl08
8 Facsimile: (415) 436-9993

9 Attorney for Plaintiffs Craig Newmark, ShawnHughes,

Keith Ogden,Glenn Fleishmanand Phil Wright
10

11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13

14 PARAMOUNT PICTURES CORPORATION et al. CaseNo.: No. CV 01-9358FMC (Ex)

(Consolidatedwith
15 Plaintiffs, CaseNo. CV 02-04445FMC Ex»

16 v. NEWMARK PLAINTIFFS'
OPPOSITIONTO ENTERTAINMENT
17 REPLAYTV, INC. et al., COMPANIES' MOTION FOR REVIEW
AND RECONSillERA TION OF
18 Defendants. MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S DISCOVERY
ORDER
19
Judge: Hon. Florence-Marie Cooper
20 Hearing Date: December 16, 2002

21

22

23

24

25

NEWMARK PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO MOTION - CASE NO. CV. 01-9358FMC (Ex)

IFOR REVIEW
& RECONSmERATION & CONSOLmATED ACTIONS.

~
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

2 I. INTRODUCTION

3 II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

4 III.
STANDARD
OF
REVIEW
5 IV. ARGUMENT

6 A. The EntertainmentCompanieshavenot met their burdenof proving that the

Magistrate
Judge's
factual
findings
were
clearly
erroneous
7
1. The MagistrateJudgecorrectlyrequiredthe EntertainmentCompaniesto
8 demonstratespecific and definite harm from possibledisclosureand a
significantrisk of disclosurebeforegrantinga protectiveorder, and
9
correctly
detennined
that
they
had
failed
to
do
so.
10 2. The MagistrateJudgecorrectly found that the relief soughtby the
EntertainmentCompanieswould impair significantly the prosecutionof
11 the NewmarkPlaintiffs' claimsby effectively preventingthe EFF
Attorneysfrom servingaslitigation counselfor the Newmark Plaintiffs in
12
this
action
13 B. The MagistrateJudgewas correctboth in concludingthat the Brown Bag test was
not met hereand in applyingthe test only arguendo. '
14
c. The EntertainmentCompanies'motion improperly seeksa fresh decisionon the
15 merits basedon different evidencethan that beforethe magistratejudge 12

16 D. Even asnarrowed,the proposedrestrictionwould materially prejudicethe

Newmark Plaintiffs becausethe threecategoriesof documentsthat the
17 EntertainmentCompaniesstill seekto withhold from the EFF Attorneys are
crucial to proving the NewmarkPlaintiffs' fair usecase. 131
18
E. The Entertainment Companies mischaracterize the Newmark Plaintiffs' First
19 Amendment arguments 1:>

20 v. CONCLUSION 1

21

22
23

24

2S

NEWMARK PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO MOTION - i-CASE NO. CV. 01-9358FMC (Ex)

FOR REVIEW & RECONSmERATION & CONSOLmATED ACTIONS.
 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

2 Cases

3 Amgen,Inc. v. ElanexPharmaceutica/s,Inc., 160F.R.D. 134(W.D. Wa. 1994).. 10, 1

4 Brown Bag Softwarev. SymantecCorp., 960 F.2d 1465(9th Cir. 1992) passim

5 CarpenterTechCorp. v. Armcolac, 132F.R.D. 24 (ED. Fa. 1990) , 1(I

6 Cuno,Inc., v. Pall Corp., 117F.R.D. 506 (E.D.N.Y. 1987)

7 Fluke Corp. v. Fine InstrumentsCorp., 32 U.S.P.Q.2d1789(W.D. Wa. 1994) 10,1

8
Grimes
v.
San
Francisco,
951
F.2d
236
(9th
Cir.
1991)
9 Hayesv. Woodford,301 F.3d 1054(9th Cir. 2002)
10 Phillips v. GMC, 289 F. 3d 1117(9th Cir. 2002) , 5, 131

1 SeattleTimesCo. v. Rhinehart,467 U.S. 20 (1984) , 16, 1

12 u: S. SteelCorp. v. UnitedStates,730 F.2d 1465 (Fed Cir. 1984) 1(1

13
us.
v.
DentsplyIntemational,
Inc.,
187
F.R.D.
152
(D.Del.
1999)
14 111
Volvo
Penta
v.
Brunswick
Corp.,
187
F.R.D.
240
(ED.
Va.
1999)
IS Statutes

16 17 U.S.C. §107 , ,. 1

17 28 V.S.C. §636(b)(l )(a) ,

18 Rules

19 1~
47
C.F.R.
1.1200
to
1.1216
20 IF.R.C.P.26 5,8,

21
F.R.C.P.
72(a)
22
Local
Rule
3.3.1
23

24

25

NEWMARK PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO MOTION - ii - CASE NO. CV. 01-9358FMC (Ex)

FOR REVIEW & RECONSmERATION & CONSOLWATED ACTIONS.
 1 I. INTRODUcnON
2 In seekingreconsiderationof the MagistrateJudge'sdenial of their motion for an

3 I extraordinaryand unprecedented
protectiveorder,the EntertainmentCompaniesurge this Court

4 not only to deny the Newmark Plaintiffs their chosencounsel,but also to createlaw that will

5 allow future litigants to effectively disqualify opposingcounselwho publicly disagreewith them

6 aboutissuesof public importancec

7 The MagistrateJudgeproperly declinedthis invitation. In seekingreconsiderationthe

8 EntertainmentCompaniesmakeno new legal arguments,nor do they questionthe legal standard

9 appliedby the MagistrateJudge. Inst~ they attackthe MagistrateJudge'stwo key factual

10 findings: that the protectiveorderwould significantly impair litigation of the Newmark

1 Plaintiffs' claims by effectively preventingElectronicFrontier Foundation(EFF) attorneysfrom

12 I servingas litigation counsel;and that the EntertainmentCompanieshad failed to demonstratea

13 Irisk of disclosureof their confidentialinfonnation

14 But just asthe EntertainmentCompaniesfailed to demonstrategood causein supportof

15 their original motion, they fail hereto demonstratethat the MagistrateJudge'sdecisionis clearly

16 en-oneous.On this recor~ the MagistrateJudge'sdecisionis the only possibleresult.

17 Nor doesthe EntertainmentCompanies'post-hocattemptto proposea different

18 protectiveorder affect the correctnessof the MagistrateJudge'sdecision. This improperattempt

19 I to gain a secondbite at the appleandreversethe MagistrateJudgefor failing to issuean order

20 that they had not askedhim to issue,evenif cognizable,is alsounsupportedby the record.

21 Accordingly, the EntertainmentCompanies'motion shouldbe denied.

22 II. PROCEDURAL
mSTORY

23 This disputebeganin August 2002,immediatelyupon the Court'sOrder granting

24

25

NEWMARK PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO MOTION - 1- CASENO.CV.01-9358

FMC(Ex)
FORREVIEW" RECONSmERA
TION " CONSOLIDATED ACTIONS.
 consolidationof this case.I By instigatingit, the EntertainmentCompanieshavenow prevented

2 the EFF Attorneys from seeingthe key documentsin this casefor more than four monthswhile
Idocumentproductio~ interrogatories,depositionsand discoverymotions (with multiple exhibits
3

4 that havebeenwithheld from EFF Attorneys)have continuedunabated.

5 Moreover,the EntertainmentCompanies'recitationof the proceduralbackgroundignores

6 threekey points! First, they omit the fact that the EntertainmentCompaniesoriginally soughtto

1 precludeaccessby all NewmarkPlaintiffs' Counsel,including Mr. Rothken,to approximately

8 70% of all documentsproducedso far,3including more than 90% of the documentsthat the

9 EntertainmentCompanieshaveself-designatedas"restricted" or "highly restricted" underthis

10 Court's May 29,2002 protectiveorder. Declarationof Ira Rothken,~4, 18; Declarationof

Nancy Meeks,~7-11 (Exh. A to NewmarkPlaintiffs' SupplementalMemorandum);

12 Declarationof ScottCooperdatedOctober31, 2002, Exhs.6 and 8, respectively.

13 Second,the EntertainmentCompaniessubsequentlybroadenedtheir claim of exclusionto

14 precludeall of the Newmark Plaintiffs' attorneysfrom seeingevenmore documents,

15 representingapproximately90% of the documentsproducedat the time.4 This remarkableclaim
I

16

17 1The EntertainmentCompaniesarguethat this Court'sconsolidationruling "implicitly invit[ed]"

18 them to seekthis protectiveorder. Motion, Exh. 3, Exh. A to CooperDecln. at 5:19-21. This is
a misreadingof the record. The Court properly concludedthat the potential for discovery
19 disputeswas no reasonto deny consolidation.Nor would suchan "invitation" relieve the
EntertainmentCompaniesof the burdento showpotentialharm asrequiredby F.R.C.P.26.
20 12The full proceduralhistory of this matteris set out in the NewmarkPlaintiffs' portion of the

21 Joint Stipulation(CooperDecln. Exh. 2) at pages24-25,and in the Declarationof Ira Rothken

datedSeptember30, 2002 (CooperDecln, Exh. 6), at W2-14.
22 3 SeeDeclarationof Nancy Meeksdated October7,2002, Exh. A to Newmark Plaintiffs'
SupplementalMemorandum,~9, 12, CooperDecln. Exh. 8.
23
4 SeeRothkenDecln.1[7, 17. The EntertainmentCompanies'attemptto treat EFF Attorneys as
24 "in-housecounsel"underthe existingprotective order would haveexcludedthem from viewing
all documentsdesignated"Restricted"and "Highly Restricted"by the Entertainment
25 Companies,including the blanketdesignationof the Departmentof Justicedocumentsand
ibusinessand financial documentsas"Highly Restricted".SeeMeeksDecln.1[7-8.

NEWMARK PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO MOnON - 2 - CASE NO. CV. 01-9358FMC (Ex)

FOR REVIEW & RECONSmERATION & CONSOLmATED ACTIONS.
 1 resultedin the Newmark Plaintiffs' preparingan ex parteapplicationto this Court for relief, at

2 which time the EntertainmentCompaniesallowed Mr. Rothkenfull accessto the documentsand

3 slightly narrowedthe numberof documentsthat the EFF Attorneyscould not seefrom almost all

4 of the confidentialdocumentsto five categoriesthat the NewmarkPlaintiffs estimatedas

5 ! encompassingsomewherebetween78% and94% of the documents.(RothkenDecl., ~13, 18;

6 Declarationof Cindy Cohn, CooperDecln. Exh.S, 1[20).5

7 Third, on this motion for reconsiderationthe EntertainmentCompaniesagainhave failed

8 to provide any log or listing of the specific documentswhich they seekto preventEFF Attorneys

9 from seeing.
6 Basedupon the previousestimates,the amountstill appearsto be more than

10 200,000pagesof the more than 708,000pagesproducedso far."

m. STANDARD OF REVIEW

12 A MagistrateJudge'sruling on a discoveryprotectiveorder is final and cannotbe set

13 asideor modified by the district court unlessthe court finds that the order is "clearly erroneous
14
SThe exactnumberof documentsin issuehasneverbeenclarified by the Entertainment
15
CompaniesThe 78% figure arisesfrom a rough calculationdoneby Mr. Rothkenbasedon a
16 visual inspectionof the categoriesof documentsbeing excludedon September25, 2002, together
with conversationswith Fenwick & West LLP personnel. RothkenDecln ~18. The 94% figure is
17 basedon a white list of Bates-stamped viewablepages notified to EFF Attorneysunderthe
termsof the interim stipulationgoverningMr. Rothken'saccess,RothkenDecln ~14 and Exh.B,
18 which the EntertainmentCompaniesprovidedto EFF Attorneyson a rolling basisduring the
briefing processbelow. This list only identified approximately6% of the pagesproducedto
19
date.
20 6 The EntertainmentCompanieshavealso neverspecifiedwhich documentsshouldbe included
in broadcategoriessuchas "lobbying" documents.The documentcategoriesare not self-
21 evident,andmany documentscould apparently qualify as "dual use." For instance,the
I EntertainmentCompanieshavenot statedhow they would categorizea documentfirst developea
22 for internal usebut then shownto a memberof Congress.As a result, throughoutthis disputethe
Newmark Plaintiffs havehad to guessat what specificdocumentsfall within thesebroadly-
23
worded categories.
24 7More precisely,of a total of 708,000pagesproducedasat October2, 2002, 65% arethe
documentsproducedto the Departmentof Justice(MeeksDecln.~9) and 5% areestimatedto be
25 the older businessand financial recordsand "contentprotection" documentsno longer
challenged,leaving approximately200,000pagesin issue.

INEWMARK PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO MOTION - 3 - CASE NO. CV. 01-9358FMC (Ex)

FOR REVIEW & RECONSmERATION & CONSOLWATED ACTIONS.
 decision.They havefailed to meetthis burden.

2 IIV. ARGUMENT

3 A. THE ENTERTAINMENT COMPANIES HAVE NOT MET THEIR BURDEN OF PROVING

THAT THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FACTUAL FINDINGS WERE CLEARLY
4 ERRONEOUS.

5 1. The Ma2istrate Judl!e correctly reQuired the Entertainment

Comoaniesto demonstrate soecific and defmite harm from oossible
6 disclosure and a sil!nificant risk of disclosure before I!rantin2 a
orotectiye order. and correctly determined that they had failed to do
7 ~
8 The party who movesfor a protectiveordermust show "good cause".F.R.C.P.26(c).

9 The moving party hasthe burdento showthat "specific prejudiceor harm will result if no

10 protectiveorder is granted"(Phillips v. GMC, 289 F. 3d 1117, 121(9thCir. 2002» andthat

there"will indeedbe harm by disclosure."Cuno,Inc., v. Pall Corp., 7 F.R.D. 506, 508

12 (ED.N. Y. 1987). "Broad allegationsofhann, unsubstantiated

by specific examples"do not

3 supporta showingof good cause. US. v. DentsplyInternational,Inc., 187 F.R-D. 152, 158

14 (D.Del. 1999)
s Beforethe MagistrateJudge,the EntertainmentCompaniesarguedthat the Brown Bag

16 test shouldgoverntheir motion. UnderBrown Bag, when opposingpartiesto a lawsuit are

17 businesscompetitors,a motion to restrict accessto discoveryby an attorneywho makes

18 competitivebusinessdecisionsfor the opposingparty is decidedby "balanc[ing] the risk of

19 inadvertentdisclosureof tradesecrets againstthe risk [of] impairedprosecutionof [the

20 opposingparty's] claims." 960 F.2d at 1470. Without decidingthe question,the Magistrate

21 Judgeassumedarguendothat the Brown Bag test applied,but found that therewas no factual
22 basisfor the requestedprotectiveorder.
23 Thus,underboth F.R.C.P. 26 andBrown Bag, the EntertainmentCompanieshad the

24 burdenof showingboth that disclosureby EFF Attorneysis likely, and that disclosure,shouldit

25 occur, is likely to result in specificharm to the EntertainmentCompanies.In their court papers

NEWMARK PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO MOTION - 5 - CASE NO. CV. 01-9358FMC (Ex)

FOR REVIEW & RECONSmERATION & CONSOLillATED ACTIONS.
 and in responseto direct questioningby the MagistrateJudgeon this point, the Entertainment

2 Companiesfailed to meettheir burdenof proof on thesetwo points. See,e.g.,Transcript,pp. 9-

3 10 (MagistrateJudge'srequestfor a descriptionof a concreteinstanceofhann). Here, as in their

4 motion beforethe MagistrateJudge,the EntertainmentCompaniesagainfail to identify any

5 specificdocumentor item of infonnation in the documentsthat could be usedto hanDthem or

6 any concretehann that would "inevitably result." Motion at 7-10.

7 Insteadof presentingspecific examplesarisingfrom specificdocuments,the

8 EntertainmentCompaniesseekto prohibit EFF Attorneysfrom seeingand using hundredsof

9 thousandsof pagesof documentsbasedsolely on the conclusoryassertionthat "disclosure.

10 would be of greatstrategicbenefit to EFF." Joint Stipulationat 17. Moreover,they fail to

11 identify any specificharm that would occurif the confidentialinfonnation were to be

12 inadvertentlydisclosed;they merely assertthat the infonnation would "infonn" EFF'sfuture

13 public lobbying strategy(Transcript,p. 10) andwould result in EFF "drawing on" the

14 infonnation in its public statements.(Motion, 9: 19).

15 The EntertainmentCompanieslist four specificpolicy issueswherethe EFF has

16 advocateda different outcomethanthat favoredby the EntertainmentCompanies: I) Legislationl

17 or technologicaldevelopmentsintendedto control unauthorizeduseor copying of a work; 2)

18 Internetcontentfiltering; 3) the developmentofunifonn standardsfor digital copying; and4) the

I

19 BroadcastFlag digital broadcastinganticopyingproposal. Joint Stipulationat 7. None of those

20 questionsis at issuein this litigation and,evenasto thoseissues,the EntertainmentCompanies

21 fail to identify the specific information of concernin their documentsandfail to explain how any
22 specifichanDwould befall their businessesof selling television andmotion picture entertainmen~

23 if the information was seenby EFF Attorneys.

24 Next, the EntertainmentCompaniesfail to demonstrate"an unacceptablerisk" (Joint

25 Stipulationat 10:13-15and Motion at 7:18-23)of inadvertentuseor disclosureof the

NEWMARK PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO MOTION -6 - CASE NO. CV. 01-9358FMC (Ex)

iFOR REVIEW
& RECONSmERATION & CONSOLmATED ACTIONS.
 confidentialinformation herethat is materially greaterthan the risk that existsin all litigation.

2 Obviously, intentional use of this information by EFF Attorneys would violate the extant

protective order in this case and subject EFF Attorneys to sanctions, up to and including

4 I tennination of this caseand disbamlent. Suchintentionaluseis easilyguardedagainst,however

5 Ijust asit is in any litigation. Stoppingshortof accusingthe EFF Attorneys of possessingthe

6 potential for intentionalabuse,the EntertainmentCompaniesinsteadintimate that the EFF

7 Attorneyswould somehowinadvertentlymisusethe infonnation. Given that the only dangers

8 they outline are intentional statementsby EFF Attorneysto Congress,the public andthe press,it
9 is difficult to imaginehow an attorneycould "inadvertently"revealconfidential infonnation in

10 those circumstances. But even if such a massive slip of the tongue was possible, the
1 EntertainmentCompanieshavemadeno showingthat this risk is materially different from that in
12 the many other caseswherecounselareroutinely adverseto the sameopposingparty and speak

3 publicly aboutthe sameissues.

14 For example,the MagistrateJudgeobservedthat the sameconcernexistsin police

15 misconductlitigation, whereplaintiffs' attorneysoften review extremelysensitiveinternal police

16 investigationdocumentsin discovery. Thesesameattorneysalsolobby for more civilian

7 oversightof the police andpublicly speakout in ways antagonisticto the interestsof the police.

18 Transcriptat 17:12-18:14.In response,the EntertainmentCompaniesmadeno attemptto show

19 that the risk in that casewas different or that Brown Bag shouldnot apply in that context,insteao

20 statingthat perhapsthe documentsin a police misconductcasewould be so "necessary"and the

21 representationso "narrow" that the risk of disclosuremight bejustified. Id. at 18:18-25.

22 The EntertainmentCompaniesdid not specifythe infonnation or documentsthat they

23 believe will hanDthem, did not specifyany purportedhanD,anddid not demonstrateany

24 increasedrisk of harm comparedto otherlitigation. Accordingly, the MagistrateJudgecorrectly

25 determinedthat the EntertainmentCompany"Plaintiffs havefailed to demonstratea sufficiently

NEWMARK PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO MOTION - 7 - CASE NO. CV. 01-9358FMC (Ex)

FOR REVIEW & RECONSmERA TION & CONSOLmATED ACTIONS.
 significant disclosure-relatedrisk or dangerto warrantthe relief requested"underF.R.C.P. 26.

2 This Court shouldfind that they havenot carriedtheir burdenof showingthat the Magistrate

3 Judge'sfinding is "clearly erroneous."

4 2. The Mamstrate Jud2e correctly found that the relief sou2ht by the
Entertainment Companieswould impair si2nificantlv the Drose~~on
5 of the Newmark Plaintiffs' claims bv effectively Dreventin2 the EFF
Attornevs from servin2 as liti2ation counselfor the Newmark
6 Plaintiffs in this action.

7 In order to overturnthis finding of fact as"clearly erroneous,"the Entertainment

8 ICompaniesmust showthat the recordbelow lacks any evidentiarybasisfor the Magistrate

9 Judge'sdetenninationthat the proposedprotectiveorder would significantly impair prosecution

10 of the Newmark Plaintiffs' claimsby effectively preventingthe EFF Attorneys from serving as

1 the Newmark Plaintiffs' litigation counselin this action.

12 This detenninationis amply supportedby the record. The oral argumenttranscriptshows:

13 that the MagistrateJudgecarefully consideredwhetherthe relief soughtwould impair the EFF

14 Attorneys' ability to representthe Newmark Plaintiffs. For instance,the MagistrateJudgenoted

15 "the impracticality of proceeding in this case . . . wherethe EFF Attorneyswould constantlyhave

16 to be asked[by the EntertainmentCompanies]to stepout of the depositionand so forth."

1 :Transcriptat 20: 5-15). Similarly, he notedthat grantingthe relief soughtby the Entertainment

18 Companiesmight put entitiesengagedin both litigation andpublic advocacy,like EFF, out of

19 Ibusiness(Transcriptat 6:23-25and 7:1,16:11-16,17:12-25and 18:1-14, and 20:5-15).

20 The evidencebelow alsodemonstratedthat the proposedprotectiveorder would

21 necessarilyhavereachedbeyonddocumentreview and depositions.The EFF Attorneys would

22 not havebeenableto participatefully in propoundingdiscoveryor in preparingbriefs and

23 motions whereconfidentialinformation is relied upon or must be rebutted,and would not be able

24 to participatesubstantiallyin the trial itself. Joint Stipulationat 21:18-22:5;RothkenDecl ~20.

25 Accordingly, the EntertainmentCompanieshavenot met their burdenof showingthat theI

NEWMARK PLAlNnFFS' OPPOSITION TO MOnON - 8 - CASE NO. CV. 01-9358FMC (Ex)

FOR REVIEW & RECONSmERATION & CONSOLmATED ACTIONS.
 1 MagistrateJudge'sfinding that the protectiveorderwould effectively preventthe EFF attorneys
I

2 from servingas litigation counselin this actionwas clearly erroneous.

3 B. THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE WAS CORRECT BOTH IN CONCLUDING THAT THE

BROWN BAG TEST WAS NOT MET HERE AND IN APPLYING THE TEST ONLY
4 ARGUENDO.

5 The EntertainmentCompaniesaskthis Court to extendBrown Bag beyondits traditionaJ

6 scope,to a party who is not a businesscompetitorandto attorneyswho arenot competitive

7 decisionmakers.Presumablyin recognitionof this stretch,the MagistrateJudgecarefully

8 couchedhis decisionasassuming"arguendothe applicability in this context" of Brown Bag.

9 Thus,while the MagistrateJudgewas correctthat this motion fails underthe Brown Bag test,he

10 was also correctin questioningwhetherBrown Bag applieshereat all.

11 The Brown Bag test is a limited, narrowrule that allows protectiveordersprecluding

12 specific counselfrom participatingin discoveryin well-defined,exceptionalcircumstances:

3 wherethe opposingpartiesarebusinesscompetitorsin the sameproductor servicemarketand

14 wherethe precludedcounselhasa competitivebusinessdecisionmakingposition for the

IS opposingcompany. Implicitly recognizingthat they could not meetthe F.R.C.P.26 "good

16 cause"standardfor a protectiveorder directly, the EntertainmentCompanieshavearguedthat

7 the Brown Bag rule shouldbe extendedto reachthe quite different circumstancesofdle EFF

18 Attorneys' representationof the NewmarkPlaintiffs.

19 This attemptto radically expandthe scopeof the Brown Bag rule shouldbe rejected. To

20 date,the Brown Bag role hasonly beenappliedto preventaccessto tradesecretsby counselwho

21 aredecisionmakersat businesscompetitorsandwho, becauseof their role in sucha competing

22 organization,would be unableto avoid usingtheir competitor'sinfonnation to scoopthe market.

23 SeeBrown Bag, 960 F.2d at 1471("The resultingprotectiveorder strikesa reasonablebalance

24 betweenthoseinterestsby shieldingBrown Bag's in-housecounselfrom personalknowledgeof

25 a competitor's trade secrets.").

NEWMARK PLAINTIFFS' oPPOSmON TO MOTION - 9 - CASE NO. CV. 01-9358FMC (Ex)

FOR REVIEW & RECONSmERATION & CONSOLIDATED ACTIONS.
1 "'Competitive decisionmaking'refersto the in-housecounsel'srole, if any, in making

2 companydecisionsthat affect contracts,marketing,employment,pricing, productdesign,or 'any

3 or all of the client's decisions. . . madein light of similar or correspondinginformation abouta

4 competitor.'" VolvoPenta v. BrunswickCorp., 187F.R.D. 240 (E.D. Va. 1999),quoting u: S.

5 SteelCorp. v. United States,730 F.2d 1465,1468& D.3 (Fed Cir. 1984). Courts have consistently

6 refusedto apply Brown Bag to counselwho were not competitivedecisionmakers.See,e.g.,

7 Volvo, 187F.R.D. at 243-44;Amgen,Inc. v. ElanexPharmaceuticals,Inc., 160 F.R.D. 134,139

8 (W.D. Wa. 1994);Fluke Corp. v. Fine InstrumentsCorp., 32 U.S.P.Q.2d1789(W.D. Wa. 1994);

9 CarpenterTechCorp. v. Armcolac, 132F.R.D. 24, 27-28 (E.D. fa. 1990).

10 Becausethe Brown Bag rule appliesonly wherethe litigating partiesarebusiness

competitorsandthe targetedattorneysengagein "competitivedecisionmaking"relative to

12 competingproducts,it applieshereif andonly if the EntertainmentCompaniescan showboth

13 that EFF is a businesscompetitorandthat EFF Attorneysengagein "competitive

14 decisionrnaking." They have shownneither.

15 First, the EFF is plainly not a businesscompetitorof the EntertainmentCompanies:it

16 doesnot create,broadcast,or distributemotion picture or televisionentertainment.Moreover,

17 the EntertainmentCompanieshavenot producedevidenceor evensuggestedthat their

18 businessesof selling television programmingandmovie contentwould be bannedby allowing

19 EFF Attorneys accessto thesedocuments.They havemerely identified differencesin the

20 parties' opinionson copyrightpolicy issuesthat havebeendiscussedin open,public arenas.s

21 Second,the EntertainmentCompaniesdo not cite a singlecasein supportof their

22 assertionthat the limited "competitivedecisionmaker"counselrule appliesoutsidethe contextor

23 businesscompetition. The EntertainmentCompaniesassertthat they needthis exceptional

24
8While it is possiblethat a governmentalpolicy decisionor a shift in public opinion could
25 ultimately harm the businessinterestsof the EntertainmentCompanies,this situationis not
comparableto a commercialcompetitor'susing a tradesecretto gain a businessadvantage.

NEWMARK PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO MOTION - 10 - CASE NO. CV. 01-9358FMC (Ex)

FOR REVIEW & RECONSmERATION & CONSOLmATED ACTIONS.
 1 protectiveorder "for a simplereason,onerecognizedby the Ninth Circuit in comparable

2 situationsasdeservingspecialjudicial treatment: The threeEFF lawyersprimarily engage

3 operateaspublic advocates,in the mediaandbeforepublic policy makers."(Joint Stipulation, 1:

4 20-24, emphasisomitted) But nowherein their briefs or argumentcan "comparable"facts or

5 casesbe found. To the contrary,every casecited by the EntertainmentCompaniesinvolved

6 counselemployedby, or engagedin competitivedecisionmakingon behalf of, a business

7 competitor. SeeNewmark Plaintiffs' Portion of Joint Stipulationat 32, note 12). Indeed,in

8 responseto a questionfrom the MagistrateJudge,the EntertainmentCompaniesacknowledged

9 that they had not identified any casewhereoutsidecounselhad beendeniedaccessto documents

10 becausethat counselwas also engagedin lobbying. Transcriptat 8:23-5,9:1 The Entertainment

11 Companies'claim of ,'comparable"situationsis simply unsubstantiated.

12 The EntertainmentCompanies'only real responsehasbeenthat the Brown Bag test can

13 apply to outsidecounselwho arecompetitivedecisionmakers,not just to in-housecounsel.

14 EntertainmentCompanies'SupplementalMemorandum,Cooper Decln. Exh.? at 3:1-5. This

15 responsemissesthe point. As Brown Bag andnumerouscasesfollowing it havemadeclear,the

16 key questionin applying the Brown Bag test is whetheran attorneyis engaged,in competitive

17 decisionmakingfor or on behalf of a businesscompetitor,not whetheror not the attorneyis in-

18 houseor retainedcounsel.Brown Bag, 960 F.2d at 1470;Amgen,Inc. v. ElanexPharmacy,Inc.,

19 160F.R.D. 134, 137-138(W.D. Wash. 1994);Fluke Corporation v. Fine InstrumentsCorp. etal

20 1994WL 739705(W.D. Wash. 1994)

21 In short, EFF cannotpossiblybe characterizedasa businesscompetitorof the

22 EntertainmentCompaniesbecauseEFF doesnot sell TV programmingor movie content,andthe

23 EntertainmentCompanieshavenot shownthat any ofEFF's activities adverselyaffect their
I

24 marketfor the saleof theseitems. Nor havethe EntertainmentCompaniesshownthat EFF

25 Attorneys engagein "competitive decisionmaking"for others,suchasby advising clients on

NEWMARK PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO MOTION - 11- CASE NO. CV. 01-9358FMC (Ex)
FOR REVIEW & RECONSmERATION & CONSOLmATED ACTIONS.
 I productsor servicesthat competewith thoseof the EntertainmentCompanies.

2 Thus,the fact that the Brown Bag rule doesnot apply hereis an additionalreasonfor

3 I affinning the MagistrateJudge'sorder.

4 c. THE ENTERTAINMENT COMPANIES' MOTION IMPROPERLY SEEKSA FRESH

DECISION ON THE MERITS BASEDON DIFFERENT EVIDENCE THAN TBA T BEFORE
5 THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

6 Although the EntertainmentCompaniespurport to move for review and reconsideration,

7 I their motion actually asksthis Court to approvea protectiveorder different than that ruled on by

8 the MagistrateJudge: one that would prohibit accessto their financial recordsand business

9 I planssince2000 (the period during which the ReplayTV andother digital video recorderswere

10 first introducedinto the consumermarket)andto the vaguecategoryof "lobbying" documents.

1 By seekinga different protectiveorder,the EntertainmentCompaniesin effect ask this
12 . Court to exceed the limited scope of review of Magistrate Judges' orders provided by the Federal
I

13 Rulesandto decide,de novo, a new anddifferent motion basedon different facts.9 This post-hoc

14 I attemptto changethe scopeof the protectiveorder cannotcall into questionthe COlTectness

of

15 the MagistrateJudge'sdecisionof the motion actuallybeforehim, much lessshow that that

16 decisionwas clearly erroneous This attemptto gain a secondbite at the appleand reversethe

17 IMagistrateJudgefor failing to issuean orderthat he was neveraskedto issueshouldbe rejected.

18 Moreover,evenif cognizable,this new anddifferent protectiveorder also is unsupported
19 by the recordbeforethe Court. As they did beforethe MagistrateJudge,the Entertainment
20 I Companieshavenot attemptedto quantify the documentsthey seekto withhold from the EFF
21 Attorneys,much lessto give a log or otherdescriptionof the specific documents.The
22 EntertainmentCompaniesdo not explain this omission,which preventsthe Newmark Plaintiffs
23
9 This tactic of aggressivelystakingout an extremeandunreasonable
position, reducingit when
24 bringing it beforethe Magistrate,then reducingit further when appealingthe Magistrate'sruling
to this Court increasesdelay and attemptsto transfoml the Court'sreview of the Magistrate
25 Judge'sorder into the de novo decisionof a new motion with new facts,contraryto the process
for review of MagistrateJudgedecisionsestablishedby the federalrules and the Judiciary Act.

NEWMARK PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO MOTION -12 - CASE NO. CV. 01-9358FMC (Ex)
I FORREVIEW & RECONSmERATION & CONSOLmATED ACTIONS.
 andthis Court from making an infonned assessment
of the effect of the proposedrestriction on

2 the Newmark Plaintiffs' ability to pursuetheir caseeffectively. Sincethe Entertainment

3 Companiesbearthe burdento demonstratehanDwith specificexamples,their motion shouldbe

4 deniedfor this reasonalone. SeePhillips v. GMC, 289 F.3d 1117,1121(9th Cir. 2002)

5 D. EVEN AS NARROWED, THE PROPOSEDRESTRICTION WOULD MATERIALLY

PREJUDICE THE NEWMARK PLAINTIFFS BECAUSETHE THREE CATEGORIES OF
6 DOCUMENTSTHAT THE ENTERTAINMENT COMPANIES STILL SEEK TO
WITHHOLD FROM THE EFF ATTORNEYS ARE CRUCIAL TO PROVING THE
7 NEWMARK PLAINTIFFS' FAIR USE CASE.

8 Having narrowedthe categoriesof withheld documentsto all of the "lobbying"

9 documents,and to the "businessplans" and "financial documentsand information" from 2000 to

10 the present,the EntertainmentCompaniesassert,without any factual support,that that theseare

1 only a "small portion," relatively few," anda "handful" of the documentsproduced.(Motion at

12 12:5,3:15 and 10:25respectively). They accordinglyconcludethat the "limited natureof this

13 Motion necessarilyeliminatesEFF's argumentthat the relief requested would prejudicethe

14 NewmarkPlaintiffs." (Motion 10:15-28). This is plainly false.

15 Basedupon previousestimatesput forth by the Newmark Plaintiffs, which the

16 EntertainmentCompanieshavenot contested,the new protectiveorder requestappearsto

17 preventthe EFF Attorneys from reviewing approximately200,000pagesproducedso far.lO

18 Moreover,althoughthe EntertainmentCompanieshavenot specifiedeventhe raw number,mucn

19 I lessthe specific descriptionof the particulardocumentsthey now seekto include in the

20 protectiveorder,the categorydescriptionsthemselvesdemonstratethat they will be extremely

21 importantto proving the NewmarkPlaintiffs' fair useclaim. The fourth fair usefactor under 17

22
23 10Seenote 7, supraand MeeksDecln, 1[7-11.This figure is calculatedon the basisof a total of
708,000pagesproducedasat October2, 2002. The EntertainmentCompanieshavenow
24 eliminatedthe "Departmentof Justice"documentsproducedpursuantto an antitrust
investigationinto the EntertainmentCompanies'online movie services,and its businessand
25 financial recordsprior to 2000. That leaves30% of the documents,or approximately200,000
pages,subject to the new protectiveorderbeing sought.

NEWMARK PLAINnFFS' oPPOSmON TO MOTION - 13 - CASE NO. CV. 01-9358FMC (Ex)

FOR REVIEW & RECONSmERATION & CONSOLmATED ACTIONS.
 v.s.c. §107is the effect of the NewmarkPlaintiffs' useof the ReplayTV device,specifically the

2 "CommercialAdvance" and "SendShow" featuresandits archiving abilities, on the value of the

3 EntertainmentCompanies'currentand likely future marketsfor their copyrightedworks.

4 The currentfinancial documentswill likely containinfonnation aboutthe actualimpact

5 of commercialadvanceby ReplayTV deviceuserson the EntertainmentCompanies'marketsanQ

6 products,aswell asthe impact causedby commercialfast-forwardingby other competitordigital!

7 video recorders(DVRs) suchasTiVo. The currentfinancial documentswill alsoreflect other

8 factorsthat impact the value of TV showsandmoviesquite apartfrom DVRs, including general

9 economictrendsandother new technologies.

10 Similarly, the businessplanswill indicateboth the EntertainmentCompanies'forecasts

1 of the financial impact ofDVRs andothertechnologicalandeconomicchanges,including online

12 downloadsand video-on-demand"andwill alsoindicatethe EntertainmentCompanies'business

13 strategiesfor adjustingto andaccommodatingthe predictedimpactsof thesechangeson their

14 marketsand the value of their products.

15 Finally, the nonpublicdocumentsthat the EntertainmentCompaniesusein lobbying

,II will reflect whethertheir representations
16 Congressand administrativeagencies to Congresson

17 the expectedimpact ofDVRs on the marketsfor their goodsareconsistentwith their

18 representations
to this Court.

19 Thesethreecategoriesof infonnation areundoubtedlyamongthe most relevantof all the

20 documentsproducedby the EntertainmentCompaniesto the NewmarkPlaintiffs' fair useclaims

21 andthey arenot availablefrom any other source. Therefore,althoughthey may be smallerin

22 volume, the documentsthat the EntertainmentCompaniesseekto preventEFF Attorneys from

23 accessingstill include core documentsrequiredto prove the Newmark Plaintiffs' case.

24

25 II Most of the documentsusedto lobby administrativeagenciesarepublic documentspursuantto

law. Seee.g.,47 C.F.R.1.1200to 1.1216(FCC Ex Parte Procedures).

INEWMARK PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO MOTION - 14 - CASE NO. CV. 01-9358FMC (Ex)

FOR REVIEW & RECONSmERATION & CONSOLWATED ACTIONS.
 The EntertainmentCompaniesrespondthat the Newmark Plaintiffs will not be prejudicea

2 by the loss of threeof their attorneysof recordbecausethe soleremainingattorney,Ira Rothken,

3 could sufficiently handlepresentationof thesecore issuesalone. While the lack of particular

4 descriptionsor evenraw numbersof documentsat issuemakea detailedresponseimpossible,it

5 is clearthat the practical effect of the proposedrestrictionwould be that threeof Newmark

6 Plaintiffs' four counselof recordcould not participatein the major part of the casepreparation.

7 Even if Mr. Rothkencould single-handedlyreview all thosedocumentsand handleevery stepof

8 the litigation in which they arereferredto or relied upon,12the proposedrestriction would still

9 materially prejudicethe NewmarkPlaintiffs by preventingtheir full, chosenlegal teamfrom

10 representingthem. Seee.g. Declarationsof Newmark,Hughes,Ogden,Fleishmanand Wright,

] Exhibits B-E of Newmark Plaintiffs SupplementalMemorandum,CooperDecln. Exh. 8.

12 E. THE ENTERTAINMENT COMPANIES MISCBARACTERIZE THE NEWMARK

PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDMENT ARGUMENTS
13

14 As the wording of the Ordermakesclear,the MagistrateJudgereachedhis decisionby

15 applying the balancingtest of the Brown Bag case. As a result,he did not haveto reachthe

16 Newmark Plaintiffs' First Amendmentarguments.However,if this Court finds it necessaryto

17 reachthosearguments,and in the interestsof correctingthe recordbeforethe Court, the

18 Newmark Plaintiffs note that the EntertainmentCompanieshavemischaracterizedthe First

19 Amendmentarguments.First, the EntertainmentCompaniesstatethat "EFF's attorneyshave

20 challengedthis Motion primarily on First Amendmentgrounds"(Motion, at 8: 20, FN 4). This i~

21 plainly incorrect,asthe pleadingsbelow demonstrate;the First Amendmentargumentconstitutes:
22 only threeof the twenty pagesof the Newmark Plaintiffs' portion of the Joint Stipulation (Joint

23 Stipulation at 28-31). Second,the EntertainmentCompanieshaveclaimedthat EFF arguedthat

24 ''as a self-proclaimed'public interest' organization,EFF enjoysa privileged placein the

25
12See Rothken Decln. 120.

NEWMARK PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO MOTION - 15 - CASE NO. CV. 01-9358FMC (Ex)

FOR REVIEW & RECONSillERA TION & CONSOLillATED ACnONS.
 1 hierarchyof First Amendmentprotections"andthat EFF wrongly confusedits First Amendment

2 interestswith thoseof its clients (Motion at 4:21-25). Basedon that mistakenassertion,the

3 EntertainmentCompaniesthen seekto distinguishthe casescited by Newmark Plaintiffs, and

4 cite SeattleTimesCo. v. Rhinehart,467 U.S. 20 (1984)to supportthe propositionthat the First

5 Amendmentdoesnot apply to the currentcase.

6 This misstatesthe NewmarkPlaintiffs' argument,as setout in the Joint Stipulation,as

7 well asFirst Amendmentjurisprudence. The Newmark Plaintiffs arguedthat the Entertainment

8 Companies'attemptto disqUalifythe EFF Attorneyson the basisof their role aspublic policy

9 advocatesimplicatesthe First Amendmentrights ofEFF's clientsto freedomof associationand

10 choiceof counsel,aswell asEFF'sown right to petition the governmentand speakto the press.
1 As a result, any proposedrestrictionon the basisofEFF's political speechand government

12 petition rights must be scrutinizedunderthe First Amendment. The samewould be true of any
13 organizationengagedin both public advocacyandlitigation, including all the amici who filed an
14 amicusbrief in the proceedingbelow in supportof the Newmark Plaintiffs, not just EFF. See
15 Amicus brief, CooperDecln. Exh.9. The EntertainmentCompanies'arguments,if accepted,

16 would havebroadFirst Amendmentimplicationsfor otherpublic interestorganizationsand even

private attorneyswho makepublic statementson issuesrelatedto their cases.13
17

18
19 13Ironically, this rule would alsopresumablyreachall threeof the law firms representingthe
EntertainmentCompanieshere,sinceall lobby Congresson behalf of their clients. Nothing
20 aboutthe EntertainmentCompanies'rationaleherewould preventapplicationof this new rule to
21 preventthem from litigating caseswherethey alsorepresentclient positionsbefore Congresson
issueswherethey are adverseto their litigation adversaries.For instance,O'Melveny & Meyers
22 LLP offers lobbying and legislativeservicesentitled "StrategicCounselingon Legislation and
Policy":
23
<http://www.omm.com/webcode/navigate.asp?nodeHandle=675>;
24 ProskauerRoseLLP offers servicesentitled "Legislative Counselingand GovernmentLiaison":
<http://www.proskauer.com/practice_areas/areas/O73> and McDennott, Will & Emery offers a
25 comprehensivelobbying and "Intellectual PropertyLegislativeServices"practice:
<http://www.mwe.com/area/legisOO6.htm>.

INEWMARK PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO MOTION - 16 - CASE NO. CV. 01-9358FMC (Ex)

FOR REVIEW & RECONSmERATION & CONSOLmA TED ACTIONS.
 Finally, SeattleTimesdoesnot apply here. That caseconsideredwhetherthe First

2 Amendmentprohibits a mediaparty from beingboundby a protectiveorder that limited its

3 ability to publicize for nonlitigation purposesinformation it receivedin discovery. Here,the

4 EntertainmentCompaniesseeksomethingmarkedlydifferent: They seekto preventEFF

5 Attorneys from accessingdiscoveryinfonnation for litigation purposesin the first place,which

6 goesto the heart of their ability to representtheir clients. The EFF Attorneyshave long agreed

7 to be boundby the protectiveorder andto refrain from any prohibiteduseor disclosure- they

8 haveevendemonstratedthat they havedoneso successfullyin many other cases.Cohn Decl.

Q ~11-13, CooperDecln. Exh.5.

10 v. CONCLUSION

II Thereis no basisin law or fairnessto allow the EntertainmentCompaniesto deny the

12 NewmarkPlaintiffs their chosenattorneyssimply becausethosesameattorneysspeakin public

13 andto Congresson issueswherethey disagreewith the EntertainmentCompanies.The
14 MagistrateJudge'sorder shouldbe affinned.
c_-~~../'- - ..," r""~~~~"~~
15 "~~~~~--;;;It, ('1""""./
16 CindyA. Cohn, Esq. (SBN.145997)
Fred von Lohmann, Esq.
17 (SBN .192657)
Robin D. Gross, Esq. (SBN 200701)
18 ELECTRONIC FRONTIER
FOUNDA nON
19 454 Shotwell Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
20 415-436-9333 xl08 (Phone)
415-436-9993 (Fax)
21
Attorney for Plaintiffs Craig
22 Newmar~ Shawn Hughes,
Keith Ogden,Glenn Fleishmanand
23 Phil Wright
24

25

NEWMARK PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO MOnON - 17 - CASE NO. CV. 01-9358FMC (Ex)

FOR REVIEW & RECONSmERA TION & CONSOLmATED ACTIONS.
 PROOF OF SERVICE

2 Paramount Pictures Corporation v. ReplayTV

CASE NO. CV 01-9358FMC (EX)
3 (Consolidated With CaseNo. CV 02-04445FMC (EX»
4 US District Court, Central District of California

5 I am over the ageof 18 years,am not a party to this action and am employedby Plaintiff's
Counsel,ElectronicFrontier Foundation.
6
7 On December2, 2002, I servedthe within:

8 NEWMARK PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITIONTO ENTERTAINMENT

COMPANIES' MOTION FOR REVIEW AND RECONSillERA TION OF
9
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S DISCOVERY ORDER
10
I on the partiesin said actionby FACSIMILE, E-MAIL andUS MAIL by depositinga copy in an
1 envelope,postageprepaidin a US MAIL BOX addressedas follows:
12
I ScottP Cooper EmmettCharlesStanton LawrenceFPulgram
13 ProskauerRose Fenwick & West Fenwick & West
2049 CenturyPark E, Ste3200 2 Palo Alto Sq., Ste 800 275 Battery St., Ste 1500
14 Los Angeles,Ca 90067-3206 PaloAlto, CA 94306 SanFrancisco,CA 94111
15 Fax No. 310-557-2193 Fax No. 650-494-1417 Fax No. 415-281-1350
scooper@proskauer.com estanton@fenwick.com Ipulgram@fenwick.com
6
Alan Rader RobertH Rotstein
7 RobertM. Schwartz McDemlott Will & Emery
18 O'Melveny & Myers LLP 2049 CenturyPark E, 34th Fl.
1999Avenueof the Stars Los Angeles,CA 90067-3208
9 Los AngelesCA 90067-6035 Fax No. 310-277-4730
Fax No. 310-246-6779 rrotstein@mwe.com
20
arader@omm.com
21 rschwartz@omm.com
22
'
I I declareunderpenaltyof perjury underthe laws of the Stateof California that the foregoing
23 is true and correct.
24
Dated:December2, 2002
25 b :c.i,!,c"":'
BARAK R. WEINSTEIN ..
26
27
28

PLAINTIFF GLENN FLEISHMAN'S ANSWERSTO COPYRIGHT OWNERS' FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES