Perfect 10 Inc v. Google Inc et al, No. 2:2004cv09484 - Document 591 (C.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: REPLY REQUEST to Clarify re: the Court's October 6, 2009 Order Granting in Part Google Inc.'s Motion to Compel Perfect 10 to Produce Complete and Unredacted Financial Documents and Other Damages-Related Documents, and Amazon.com and Alexa Internet 590 , PERFECT 10'S RESPONSE TO GOOGLE INC.'S REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION RE: THE ORDER COMPELLING PERFECT 10 TO PRODUCE COMPLETE AND UNREDACTED FINANCIAL DOCUMENTS AND OTHER DAMAGES-RELATED DOCUMENTS, AND AMAZON.COM AND ALEXA INTERNETS JOINDER THEREIN, filed by Plaintiff Perfect 10 Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration DECLARATION OF JEFFREY N. MAUNSER IN RESPONSE TO GOOGLE INC.'S REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION RE: THE ORDER COMPELLING PERFECT 10 TO PRODUCE COMPLETE AND UNREDACTED FINANCIAL DOCUMENTS AND OTHER DAMAGES-RELATED DOCUMENTS)(Mausner, Jeffrey)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 5 Jeffrey N. Mausner (State Bar No. 122385) Law Offices of Jeffrey N. Mausner Warner Center Towers 21800 Oxnard Street, Suite 910 Woodland Hills, California 91367-3640 Email: Jeff@mausnerlaw.com Telephone: (310) 617-8100, (818) 992-7500 Facsimile: (818) 716-2773 6 Attorneys for Plaintiff Perfect 10, Inc. 2 3 4 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 PERFECT 10, INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff, 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 DISCOVERY MATTER v. PERFECT 10’S RESPONSE TO GOOGLE INC.’S REQUEST FOR GOOGLE, INC., a corporation, CLARIFICATION RE: THE Defendant. ORDER COMPELLING PERFECT ______________________________ 10 TO PRODUCE COMPLETE AND UNREDACTED FINANCIAL AND COUNTERCLAIM DOCUMENTS AND OTHER DAMAGES-RELATED PERFECT 10, INC., a California DOCUMENTS, AND corporation, AMAZON.COM AND ALEXA Plaintiff, INTERNET’S JOINDER THEREIN v. Before Judge Stephen J. Hillman 23 24 AMAZON.COM, INC., a corporation, et al., 25 26 27 Case No. CV 04-9484 AHM (SHx) Consolidated with Case No. CV 054753 AHM (SHx) Defendant. Date: None Set Time: None Set Place: Courtroom 550 Discovery Cut-Off Date: None Set Pretrial Conference Date: None Set Trial Date: None Set 28 Perfect 10’s Response To Google Inc.’s Request For Clarification Re: The Order Compelling Perfect 10 to Produce Complete and Unredacted Financial Documents and Other Damages-Related Documents, and Amazon.com and Alexa Internet’s Joinder Therein 1 I. 2 INTRODUCTION. Google’s request for clarification of this Court’s October 6, 2009 Order 3 regarding financial documents is an improper, belated request for 4 reconsideration. 5 As a threshold matter, Google mischaracterizes Perfect 10’s position on 6 the requested clarification. (Google did not include in its exhibits the 7 correspondence between counsel on this matter, but Perfect 10 does. See 8 Exhibits 1 and 2 to the Mausner declaration.) Perfect 10 never said it construed 9 the Court’s Order as a Protective Order. Perfect 10 stated that it disagreed with 10 Google’s position and that given the Court Order and rulings, the production of 11 the Microsoft settlement agreement is not required. Moreover, there is no need 12 for clarification – the language is clear but Google has only quoted a snippet in 13 its request instead of all of the applicable language. Moreover, Google is 14 requesting that this Court find that defendants are somehow entitled to yet more 15 information regarding confidential settlement agreements in other actions based 16 on its incorrect interpretation of the Order. Google and Amazon already have 17 received all of the information the Court ordered Perfect 10 to produce at the 18 September 22, 2009 hearing regarding the Microsoft settlement, and Google has 19 made absolutely no showing as to why any additional information is necessary. 20 Finally, this Court’s Order in Perfect 10 v. Net Management Services, et al., 21 attached as Exhibit 3 to the Mausner declaration, underscores that there is no 22 reason to disclose any additional settlement information. 23 II. GOOGLE’S REQUEST SHOULD BE DENIED. 24 A. 25 In response to Google’s October 15 letter request that Perfect 10 agree to Google Mischaracterizes Perfect 10’s Position. 26 Google’s incorrect interpretation of the Court’s Order, Perfect 10’s counsel 27 wrote the following to Google’s counsel: 28 Perfect 10 does not agree with Google’s interpretation. As you know, 1 Perfect 10’s Response To Google Inc.’s Request For Clarification Re: The Order Compelling Perfect 10 to Produce Complete and Unredacted Financial Documents and Other Damages-Related Documents 1 Perfect 10 has taken the position that in light of the Court’s rulings 2 regarding financial documents, the production of the Microsoft 3 settlement agreement is not required. 4 (Attached as Exhibit 1 to the Mausner declaration is a copy of the letter to 5 Jeffrey Mausner from Rachel Kassabian, dated October 15, 2009; attached as 6 Exhibit 2 is the email to Ms. Kassabian from Mr. Mausner in response, dated 7 October 18, 2009.) 8 9 10 11 B. The Court’s Order Clearly States That Perfect 10 Is Not Required To Disclose Any Additional Settlement Information. The following is the applicable language regarding settlement information in the Court’s Order, Paragraph 2: 12 Settlement payments Perfect 10 has received from third parties are 13 relevant for discovery purposes. This Court is not ruling on whether this 14 information is relevant for any other purpose. Perfect 10 may not redact 15 information regarding the date, payor, and amount of any such settlement 16 payments. This information will be treated as “HIGHLY 17 CONFIDENTIAL” under the terms of the Protective Order. Perfect 10’s 18 compliance with the Order is stayed for ten (10) days from the hearing 19 date, September 22, 2009. By producing such settlement payment 20 information pursuant to this Order, neither Perfect 10 nor its counsel will 21 be in violation of any protective orders or confidentiality provisions 22 entered into in this action or in any other action, or with any of the 23 settling third-parties. Perfect 10 is not required to produce any 24 information about any settlements with third-parties, other than the 25 date, payor, and amount of any such settlement payments. and may 26 redact the settlement information it is not required to produce. 27 (Google asked this Court not to include the language emphasized, but it was 28 included by the Court in its Order.) 2 Perfect 10’s Response To Google Inc.’s Request For Clarification Re: The Order Compelling Perfect 10 to Produce Complete and Unredacted Financial Documents and Other Damages-Related Documents 1 The language of the Order clarifies that Perfect 10 is not required to 2 produce any additional settlement information. Thus, Google is effectively 3 belatedly moving for reconsideration. 4 Google’s request for modification is nothing other than an attempt to 5 eviscerate the language of the Court’s Order so that it can then seek to obtain 6 additional settlement information, when the plain language of the Court Order 7 clearly states that “Perfect 10 is not required to produce any information 8 about any settlements with third-parties, other than the date, payor, and 9 amount of any such settlement payments….” (Order, Para. 2.) 10 C. In the Perfect 10 v. Net Management Case, This Court Did Not 11 Require The Disclosure Of Any Third-Party Settlement 12 Information, Let Alone The Disclosure Of The Agreements 13 Themselves, Upholding The Strong Public Policy Against 14 Disclosure Of Confidential Settlement Documents. 15 The Court’s Order in Perfect 10 v. Net Management Services, et al., 16 CV02-3735-LGB (SHx), underscores that the Court’s Order here should not be 17 modified. (See Order dated July 21, 2003, a copy of which is attached as 18 Exhibit 3 to the Mausner Declaration.) In that litigation, Perfect 10 was not 19 required to provide any third-party settlement information, let alone the 20 agreements themselves. In the Perfect 10 v. Net Management Order, this Court 21 held: 22 The court concludes that the settlement agreements and related 23 settlement documents should not be produced. Not only should the 24 strong public policy cautioning disclosure of confidential settlement 25 documents be honored in this case, but the court concludes that the 26 settlement documents have no relevance to Perfect 10’s claims against 27 the defendants in this case…. 28 (Exhibit 3, p. 2, emphasis added.) 3 Perfect 10’s Response To Google Inc.’s Request For Clarification Re: The Order Compelling Perfect 10 to Produce Complete and Unredacted Financial Documents and Other Damages-Related Documents 1 D. Other Courts Have Not Required The Disclosure Of Third- 2 Party Settlement Information, Based On the Strong Public 3 Policy Against Disclosure of Confidential Settlements. 4 Other courts have come to the same conclusion. For example, in Butta- 5 Brinkman v. FCA Intern., Ltd.,164 F.R.D. 475 , 476-77 ( N.D. Ill. 1995), the 6 court held: 7 Finally, the defendant contends that it should not be required 8 to turn over confidential settlement agreements reached in other 9 cases involving sexual harassment. FCA argues that the strong 10 congressional policy favoring settlement weighs in favor of 11 keeping such documents protected, so long as the information is 12 available through other means. See Cook v. Yellow Freight Sys., 13 Inc., 132 F.R.D. 548, 554-55 (E.D.Cal.1990) (denying motion to 14 compel production of documents containing information about 15 confidential settlement discussions); Bottaro v. Hatton Assocs., 96 16 F.R.D. 158, 160 (E.D.N.Y.1982) (denying motion to compel 17 production of settlement agreement); see also Grove Fresh 18 Distribs., Inc. v. John Labatt, Ltd., 888 F.Supp. 1427, 1441 19 (N.D.Ill.1995) (“And while there is simply no legitimate public 20 interest to be served by disclosing settlement agreements, the 21 parties to the agreement are likely to have a compelling interest in 22 keeping the settlement amount confidential.”) (quotations omitted). 23 We find this reasoning compelling. Absent a showing by the 24 plaintiff that she will be unable to obtain the relevant information 25 through other discovery requests or interrogatories, we believe 26 these settlement documents ought to retain their confidentiality. 27 Accordingly, we sustain this portion of FCA's objection, and deny 28 the plaintiff's motion to compel the production of confidential 4 Perfect 10’s Response To Google Inc.’s Request For Clarification Re: The Order Compelling Perfect 10 to Produce Complete and Unredacted Financial Documents and Other Damages-Related Documents 1 settlement agreements reached with other employees. 2 Google and Amazon.com have already received the information regarding the 3 amount of the Microsoft settlement through other means, from the financial 4 statements, which were produced on October 16 pursuant to the Court’s Order. 5 See also Davenport v. Indiana Masonic Home Foundation, Inc, 2003 WL 6 1888986 at *3 (S.D. Ind. 2003) (“Settlement serves an important role in 7 expediting and improving the efficiency of the litigation process. See Grove 8 Fresh Distribs., Inc. v. John Labatt Ltd., 888 F.Supp. 1427, 1441 9 (N.D.Ill.1995). Thus, courts are generally reluctant to order disclosure of 10 negotiations or documents related to a settlement agreement.”); Folb v. Motion 11 Picture Industry Pension & Health Plans, 16 F.Supp.2d 1164, 1174-75 (C.D. 12 Ca. 1998). 13 III. 14 CONCLUSION. Contrary to the expectations of Perfect 10 and the parties that settled with 15 Perfect 10, the amounts of the settlements have already been disclosed to 16 Google and Amazon.com. There is no plausible reason that the confidential 17 settlement agreements, or any other information regarding those confidential 18 settlements, has to be disclosed. It will certainly discourage settlements that 19 parties want to keep confidential, if courts order that such settlement 20 agreements be produced in subsequent litigation. That is the reason for the 21 strong public policy against disclosure of confidential settlement documents. 22 The Court should deny Google’s request in its entirety. 23 Dated: October 23, 2009 24 25 26 27 Respectfully submitted, Law Offices of Jeffrey N. Mausner Jeffrey N. Mausner By: ________________________________ Jeffrey N. Mausner Attorney for Plaintiff Perfect 10, Inc. 28 5 Perfect 10’s Response To Google Inc.’s Request For Clarification Re: The Order Compelling Perfect 10 to Produce Complete and Unredacted Financial Documents and Other Damages-Related Documents
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
