Case 3:20-cv-04423-JD Document 322 Filed 05/11/23 Page 1 of 27
`
`
`
`George A. Zelcs*
`gzelcs@koreintillery.com
`Randall P. Ewing, Jr.*
`rewing@koreintillery.com
`Ryan Z. Cortazar *
`rcortazar@koreintillery.com
`KOREIN TILLERY, LLC
`205 North Michigan, Suite 1950
`Chicago, IL 60601
`Telephone: (312) 641-9750
`Facsimile: (312) 641-9751
`
`Stephen M. Tillery*
`stillery@koreintillery.com
`Steven M. Berezney, CA Bar #329923
`sberezney@koreintillery.com
`Carol O’Keefe*
`cokeefe@koreintillery.com
`KOREIN TILLERY, LLC
`505 North 7th Street, Suite 3600
`St. Louis, MO 63101
`Telephone: (314) 241-4844
`Facsimile: (314) 241-3525
`
`*Admitted pro hac vice
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Counterclaim
`Defendants
`
`
`KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP
`ROBERT A. VAN NEST - # 84065
`rvannest@keker.com
`DAN JACKSON - # 216091
`djackson@keker.com
`JULIA L. ALLEN - # 286097
`jallen@keker.com
`TRAVIS SILVA - # 295856
`tsilva@keker.com
`ANNA PORTO - # 319903
`aporto@keker.com
`LUKE APFELD - # 327029
`lapfeld@keker.com
`AMOS J. B. ESPELAND - # 332895
`aespeland@keker.com
`633 Battery Street
`San Francisco, CA 94111-1809
`Telephone:
`415 391 5400
`Facsimile:
`415 397 7188
`
`Attorneys for Defendants and Counterclaimants
`YouTube, LLC and Google LLC
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`MARIA SCHNEIDER, UNIGLOBE
`ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, and AST
`PUBLISHING, LTD., individually and on
`behalf of all others similarly situated,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`YOUTUBE, LLC and GOOGLE LLC,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. 3:20-cv-04423-JD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Judge: Hon. James Donato
`
`
`Trial Date: June 12, 2023
`Time: 9:00 a.m
`
`JOINT PRETRIAL STATEMENT
`
`YOUTUBE, LLC and GOOGLE LLC,
`
`Counterclaimants,
`
`v.
`
`PIRATE MONITOR LTD., et al.,
`Counterclaim-Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JOINT PRETRIAL STATEMENT
`
`Case No. 3:20-cv-04423-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-04423-JD Document 322 Filed 05/11/23 Page 2 of 27
`
`
`
`Additional Counsel
`
`Joshua Irwin Schiller, CA Bar #330653
`jischiller@bsfllp.com
`BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
`44 Montgomery Street, 41st Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`Telephone: (415) 293-6800
`Facsimile: (415) 293-6899
`
`Philip C. Korologos*
`pkorologos@bsfllp.com
`Jeffrey Waldron*
`jwaldron@bsfllp.com
`BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
`55 Hudson Yards, 20th Floor
`New York, NY 10001
`Telephone: (212) 446-2300
`Facsimile: (212) 446-2350
`
`
`
`*Admitted pro hac vice
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Counterclaim-
`Defendants
`
`
`
`DAVID H. KRAMER, SBN 168452
`LAUREN GALLO WHITE, SBN 309075
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`Professional Corporation
`650 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
`Telephone: (650) 493-9300
`Facsimile: (650) 565-5100
`Email: dkramer@wsgr.com
`lwhite@wsgr.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants and
`Counterclaimants
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JOINT PRETRIAL STATEMENT
`
`Case No. 3:20-cv-04423-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-04423-JD Document 322 Filed 05/11/23 Page 3 of 27
`
`
`
`
`
`JOINT PRETRIAL STATEMENT
`
`In accordance with Paragraph 3 of this Court’s Standing Order for Civil Jury Trials, the
`
`parties hereby submit this Joint Pretrial Statement. Currently pending before the Court are:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification [ECF 245]1;
`
`Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [ECF 265];
`
`Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ Daubert Motions [ECFs 254, 256, 258, 262, 264]; and
`
`Counterclaim Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF 260].
`
`The parties note that resolution of these motions may affect the nature and scope of the issues to
`
`be tried. The submission of this Joint Statement does not waive any rights and the parties both
`
`reserve all rights respectively, including to modify any and all positions in this Pretrial Statement
`
`as necessary, including after any of the pending motions are decided.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`I.
`
`SUBSTANCE OF THE ACTION
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`A.
`
`The Parties
`
`Plaintiffs. Maria Schneider alleges that she owns copyrights in numerous works including
`
`U.S. registered copyrights in the compositions for and unregistered U.S. copyright interests in the
`
`sound recordings of the musical works Bird Count, Dance You Monster to My Soft Song, and
`
`Three Romances Choro Dancado, among others. Uniglobe Entertainment, LLC (“Uniglobe”)
`
`alleges that it owns a U.S. registered copyright in the screenplay of the film 5 Weddings and an
`
`unregistered foreign copyright in the Hindi-dubbed film 5 Weddings. AST Publishing Ltd.
`
`(“AST”) alleges that it owns foreign unregistered copyrights to the audiobooks of numerous
`
`works, including My Children and Zuleikha Opens Her Eyes.
`
`22
`
`
`
`Ms. Schneider and Uniglobe serve as the class representatives for the putative Registered
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Works Infringement Class which consists of all persons who own copyrights in one or more
`
`works: 1) registered with the United States Copyright Office; 2) contained or used in a video that
`
`
`1 Defendants object to a trial beginning prior to resolution of the pending class certification
`motion. In the event any class is certified, the parties agree that any class notice and opt-out
`processes will make a classwide trial on June 12 infeasible. However, as set forth in Section IX
`below, Plaintiffs support bifurcation to allow any non-class claims to proceed on the current trial
`schedule while class notice proceeds on the class claims. Defendants object to that proposal.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`JOINT PRETRIAL STATEMENT
`
`Case No. 3:20-cv-04423-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-04423-JD Document 322 Filed 05/11/23 Page 4 of 27
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`was displayed on YouTube and then removed from YouTube due to a successful Takedown
`
`Notice; and 3) contained or used in a video that was displayed on YouTube subsequent to the first
`
`successful Takedown Notice and then removed from YouTube as a result of either a second
`
`successful Takedown Notice made on or after July 2, 2019, or an allegation of infringement made
`
`in a court of law on or after July 2, 2019.
`
`
`
`Uniglobe and AST serve as the class representatives for the putative Foreign Unregistered
`
`Works Infringement Class, which consists of all persons who own copyrights in one or more
`
`works: 1) first published outside the United States; 2) contained or used in a video that was
`
`displayed on YouTube and then removed from YouTube due to a successful Takedown Notice;
`
`and 3) contained or used in a video that was displayed on YouTube subsequent to the first
`
`successful Takedown Notice and then removed from YouTube as a result of either a second
`
`successful Takedown Notice made on or after July 2, 2019, or an allegation of infringement made
`
`in a court of law on or after July 2, 2019.
`
`14
`
`
`
`Ms. Schneider serves as the class representative for the putative International Standard
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`Recording Code (“ISRC”) Class, which consists of all persons who own copyrights in one or more
`
`digital form sound recordings of musical works that: 1) has been assigned an International
`
`Standard Recording Code (“ISRC”); and 2) was a component of a video that was uploaded to
`
`YouTube that (a) did not include the assigned ISRC and (b) was removed from YouTube as a
`
`result of either a successful Takedown Notice made on or after July 2, 2019, or an allegation of
`
`infringement made in a court of law on or after July 2, 2019.
`
`21
`
`
`
`Ms. Schneider serves as the class representative for the putative Clip Filename (“CLFN”)
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Class which consists of all persons who own copyrights in one or more works that: 1) had an
`
`associated CLFN field populated with copyright management information (“CMI”) and 2) was
`
`contained in a video uploaded to YouTube (a) either without the associated CMI metadata or with
`
`the CMI metadata altered and (b) that was removed from YouTube as a result of either a
`
`successful Takedown Notice made on or after July 2, 2019, or an allegation of infringement made
`
`in a court of law on or after July 2, 2019.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`JOINT PRETRIAL STATEMENT
`
`Case No. 3:20-cv-04423-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-04423-JD Document 322 Filed 05/11/23 Page 5 of 27
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiffs. Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff YouTube
`
`LLC (“YouTube”) is a Delaware limited liability company that owns and operates YouTube, an
`
`online video hosting service where users can share and access video content. Defendant and
`
`Counterclaim Plaintiff Google LLC (“Google”) is a Delaware limited liability company that
`
`wholly owns and controls YouTube.
`
`
`
`Counterclaim Defendants. The Counterclaim Defendants in this action are Pirate Monitor
`
`Ltd., a limited company with its principal place of business in the British Virgin Islands, Pirate
`
`Monitor LLC, which does not exist, and Gabor Csupó, a citizen of Hungary and a resident of the
`
`State of California.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Statement Regarding Substance of the Claims
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Plaintiffs and the putative class allege that Defendants are liable for direct, contributory,
`
`and vicarious copyright infringement because YouTube copied, reproduced, distributed, publicly
`
`performed, and/or publicly displayed Plaintiffs’ works without authorization, and it induced,
`
`materially contributed to, and controlled the copying, reproduction, distribution, public
`
`performance, and/or public display of infringing videos uploaded to YouTube by users and
`
`financially benefited from the infringing activity. Plaintiff Schneider also alleges that Defendants
`
`are liable for the removal of copyright management information from videos containing her works
`
`and for the distribution, import for distribution, or public performance of videos containing such
`
`works without their associated copyright management information in violation of 17 USC
`
`§§1202(b)(1) and 1202(b)(3).
`
`YouTube is the largest video-sharing website in the world. Faced with litigation by major
`
`music labels and other significant rights holders, YouTube crafted a two-tiered system of
`
`copyright “enforcement” on its platform. For large and significant rights holders with the power
`
`to hold Defendants to account, YouTube developed Content ID, a copyright management system
`
`and digital fingerprint matching technology that enables the identification of copyright infringing
`
`works on YouTube. In this program, videos uploaded to YouTube are scanned against a database
`
`of files submitted by Content ID participants. These large rights holders can block the infringing
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`JOINT PRETRIAL STATEMENT
`
`Case No. 3:20-cv-04423-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-04423-JD Document 322 Filed 05/11/23 Page 6 of 27
`
`
`
`video, monetize the infringing video by running ads against it, or just track the infringing video’s
`
`viewership statistics.
`
`By contrast, smaller rights holders like Plaintiffs are denied appropriate abilities to police
`
`copyright infringement—no matter how many times their copyrighted works are infringed on
`
`YouTube. These smaller rights holders are relegated to the YouTube search bar, which can only
`
`locate infringing works if the infringing uploader has voluntarily identified the work infringed or
`
`its author; which de-duplicates search bar results so only some, but not all, results for an
`
`infringement are displayed; and which does not show search results for private and unlisted videos
`
`at all, even though they comprise
`
` of the YouTube platform and can be publicly
`
`displayed to millions of viewers. Such limitations prevent copyright owners from using the search
`
`bar to locate information needed (e.g., identifying infringements) to submit DMCA takedown
`
`notifications.
`
`In 2017, in response to complaints by YouTube Partner channels, YouTube expanded the
`
`use of YouTube’s fingerprint matching technology to include video to video matching across the
`
`platform for what it termed “Copyright Match”. As part of this program (and to establish what
`
`YouTube internally calls the “Content Age” of material uploaded to YouTube), YouTube matches
`
`each newly uploaded video against the corpus of videos previously uploaded to the platform,
`
`including videos that have been the subject of successful DMCA takedown notices. While
`
`YouTube’s matching technology accurately identifies all matches down to
`
`seconds, YouTube
`
`refuses to disclose any matches of private or unlisted videos or any matches that contain less than
`
` of the work claimed in a DMCA takedown.
`
`Moreover, it was not until after this lawsuit was commenced that YouTube provided
`
`copyright owners other than the select number of “YouTube Partner Program” participants
`
`information about these content matches. This meant that until 2021, a copyright owner that
`
`identified an infringement in a takedown notice was not provided the data that YouTube had in its
`
`possession of matches of essentially the same content elsewhere on the platform. Plaintiffs
`
`maintain that as a result of this video-to-video matching, YouTube has actual or red-flag
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`JOINT PRETRIAL STATEMENT
`
`Case No. 3:20-cv-04423-JD
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-04423-JD Document 322 Filed 05/11/23 Page 7 of 27
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`knowledge of infringing videos across its platform that it neither removes nor discloses to
`
`copyright claimants to allow them to identify and seek removal of such infringing videos.
`
`As a result of its disparate, two-tier enforcement system, Defendants reap substantial
`
`profits. Pirated content is readily available on YouTube (as evidenced by the 1.5 billion instances
`
`of infringement identified by Content ID each year), which draws users to the site, and the growth
`
`in users incentivizes the posting of more infringing content on YouTube, which in turn enables
`
`Defendants to reap more advertising revenue. Defendants also profit because the growth of the
`
`YouTube platform—including through the availability of pirated content owned by small rights
`
`holders—generates valuable user information on user preferences and demographics which is used
`
`to develop targeted advertising for YouTube, Google, and Google’s various products and services
`
`in the online advertising market.
`
`Here, Plaintiffs have filed successful takedown notices identifying certain infringements of
`
`their works on the YouTube site, following the procedures of § 512(c) of the Digital Millennium
`
`Copyright Act (“DMCA”). YouTube removed those infringing videos and the infringing videos
`
`have not been reinstated pursuant to a counter-notification by the uploader or to a retraction by the
`
`claimant. During this litigation, Plaintiffs identified still more infringements of their work during
`
`discovery and YouTube removed these infringing videos before plaintiffs filed takedown notices,
`
`obviating the need for plaintiffs to file DMCA takedowns for such works.
`
`The DMCA provides platforms like YouTube with a safe harbor from copyright
`
`infringement claims in certain defined circumstances. YouTube is only eligible to pursue the
`
`DMCA safe harbors if: (1) it first adopts and reasonably implements a policy that terminates, in
`
`appropriate circumstances, YouTube account holders who are repeat infringers; and (2) it
`
`accommodates and does not interfere with Standard Technical Measures (“STM”) for identifying
`
`infringements. YouTube fails both of these “eligibility conditions”; hence, it does not qualify for
`
`any safe harbor affirmative defense in this case.
`
`YouTube fails to reasonably implement its repeat infringer policy including because, as
`
`noted, its exclusion of private and unlisted videos and search result de-duplication prevents
`
`copyright owners from gathering information necessary to submit takedown requests; it fails to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`JOINT PRETRIAL STATEMENT
`
`Case No. 3:20-cv-04423-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-04423-JD Document 322 Filed 05/11/23 Page 8 of 27
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`issue copyright strikes for the billions of infringements identified by Content ID; it assesses strikes
`
`against channels, not users, even though one user can have multiple channels;
`
`
`
`; and it
`
`excludes its Trusted Enterprise Partners from termination, regardless of the number of strikes they
`
`receive. YouTube also admittedly does not accommodate and instead interferes with the use of
`
`third-party digital fingerprinting technology, which technology Plaintiffs will establish is a
`
`“standard technical measure” as defined in the DMCA.
`
`Independent of these failures to satisfy the eligibility conditions for safe harbor against any
`
`infringements, YouTube separately cannot claim safe harbor protection in the context of the
`
`specific infringements of the plaintiffs given that it had either actual or red flag knowledge of
`
`those infringements upon which it did not act to remove the infringing material. And, with respect
`
`to infringements viewed as a result of YouTube's Autoplay and Watch Next functions, YouTube
`
`had both the right and ability to control the infringing activity while it received financial benefits
`
`directly attributable to the infringements including from revenues generated by advertisements run
`
`against infringing videos played as a result of such functions.
`
`16
`
`
`
`As to Plaintiffs’ CMI claims under 17 U.S.C. § 1202, Plaintiffs assert that YouTube has
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`allowed users to post videos containing sound recordings of their works knowing the uploads do
`
`not contain the International Standard Recording (“ISRC”) codes that are the internationally
`
`recognized identification tool for sound recordings. Further, it is undisputed that YouTube’s
`
`upload and transcoding process removes CMI, like a song name, included in the clip file name
`
`(“CLFN”) metadata from infringing videos. Plaintiffs contend that YouTube well understood that
`
`its removal or alteration of CLFN metadata including CMI, or its distribution or public display of
`
`videos with CMI (including ISRC codes) removed, would likely induce, enable, facilitate, or
`
`conceal infringement.
`
`C.
`
`Defendants’ Statements Regarding Substance of the Claims
`
`
`
`YouTube is not liable for direct, contributory, or vicarious copyright infringement, because
`
`Plaintiffs cannot establish the elements of any of those claims. Furthermore, YouTube has
`
`affirmative defenses to Plaintiffs’ claims. Specifically, YouTube has licenses to Plaintiffs’ works,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`JOINT PRETRIAL STATEMENT
`
`Case No. 3:20-cv-04423-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-04423-JD Document 322 Filed 05/11/23 Page 9 of 27
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`and Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the statute of limitations and contractual limitations, and
`
`YouTube has a fair use defense for certain infringements. Finally, YouTube is not liable for
`
`Plaintiffs’ direct or indirect copyright infringement claims because it is protected by the DMCA
`
`safe harbor.2
`
`YouTube also is not liable for Schneider’s claim under 17 U.S.C. § 1202 for the removal
`
`of copyright management information (“CMI”) from videos containing Schneider’s works,
`
`because Schneider cannot show that the elements of that claim are satisfied for either her ISRC or
`
`CLFN theories. And YouTube also has affirmative license defenses that defeat Schneider’s CMI
`
`claim.
`
`Plaintiffs are not owed damages to the extent they could have mitigated any damages
`
`caused by copyright infringement through their access to Content ID. Finally, Plaintiffs cannot
`
`obtain judgment, or seek certain damages, because of their failure to register their copyrights.
`
`D.
`
`Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiffs’ Statement Regarding Substance of
`the Counterclaims3
`
`Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiffs assert counterclaims against Pirate Monitor Ltd.,
`
`and its sole-owner, Mr. Csupó, for violation of 17 U.S.C. § 512(f).
`
`YouTube operates an online video hosting service that allows users to upload video
`
`content to YouTube’s servers. Subject to limited exceptions not relevant here, YouTube allows
`
`anyone who purports to act on behalf of copyright owners to submit takedown notices under
`
`Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA takedown notices”).
`
`Counterclaimants assert that Mr. Csupó, acting directly, on behalf of others, or through his agents
`
`
`2 As Defendants have informed Plaintiffs and the Court, Defendants do not intend to pursue the
`DMCA safe harbor affirmative defense should the Court deny the pending class certification
`motion. ECF Nos. 310, 309-2. As Plaintiffs have informed the Court, under Rule 15, Defendants
`have no right unilaterally to amend their pleading to withdraw an affirmative defense and
`Plaintiffs do not consent to Defendants’ effort to avoid having their DMCA affirmative defense
`proceed to trial. ECF No. 309.
`3 Despite the Court’s order that Intellectual Property LLC produce documents by no later than
`April 27, 2023, Defendants did not receive the complete production of documents from
`Intellectual Property LLC until May 10, 2023, just one day before the pretrial filings are due. As a
`result, Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiffs reserve the right to supplement or amend portions
`of this statement and other pretrial filings related to the counterclaims.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`JOINT PRETRIAL STATEMENT
`
`Case No. 3:20-cv-04423-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-04423-JD Document 322 Filed 05/11/23 Page 10 of 27
`
`
`
`or alter ego, knowingly submitted 1,975 false DMCA takedown notices to Counterclaimants, in
`
`violation of 17 U.S.C. § 512(f). Counterclaimants further assert that Pirate Monitor Ltd. is
`
`responsible for this scheme as Mr. Csupó’s alter ego. See Dkt. 160 at ¶¶ 76-85; Dkt. 296.
`
`Counterclaimants assert that they have suffered actual damages as a result of Counterclaim
`
`Defendants’ scheme, including costs to investigate and respond to the scheme, and attorneys’ fees
`
`incurred to further investigate and pursue claims against Counterclaim Defendants.
`
`E.
`
`Counterclaim Defendants’ Statement Regarding Substance of the
`Counterclaim Defenses
`
`Mr. Csupó is a five-time Emmy award-winning producer, director, and the creator of the
`
`animated series Rugrats and many other beloved shows. He owned a company called Intellectual
`
`Property LLC (“IPLLC”) that partnered with MegaFilm Kft. (“MegaFilm”) to protect the
`
`copyrights of various Hungarian films. Mr. Csupó disputes that he had any involvement with the
`
`submission of 1,975 inaccurate takedown notices. Further, he claims that he cannot be held liable
`
`as a matter of agency and corporate law.
`
`Pirate Monitor Ltd., a British Virgin Islands corporation, sued YouTube and Google for
`
`copyright infringement of certain works unrelated to the works subject to the 1,975 takedown
`
`notices at issue, ECF No. 1, but later voluntarily dismissed its claims with prejudice, ECF No. 66.
`
`Pirate Monitor Ltd. was dormant during the period in which the 1,975 takedown notices at issue
`
`were submitted and had no role in those events and contends it cannot be held liable.
`
`II.
`
`RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiffs and the Classes
`
`For their claims for violation of the Copyright Act, Plaintiffs and the Classes seek the
`
`following relief:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`A judgment that each Defendant violated the Copyright Act;
`
` An award of actual damages equal to all profits, direct or indirect, illegally
`
`obtained by Defendants for each infringing video;
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`JOINT PRETRIAL STATEMENT
`
`Case No. 3:20-cv-04423-JD
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-04423-JD Document 322 Filed 05/11/23 Page 11 of 27
`
`
`
`3.
`
`In the alternative, an award of statutory damages for willful infringement for each
`
`registered work that was infringed in the range of $750 to $150,000 per work given the willfulness
`
`of Defendants’ violations;
`
`4.
`
`An order granting Plaintiffs Schneider and Uniglobe, and each member of the
`
`Registered Works Class, the right to elect between the actual damages award and the statutory
`
`damages award prior to the entry of judgment;
`
`5.
`
`An order enjoining Defendants from directly, vicariously, or contributorily
`
`infringing Plaintiffs’ copyright-protected works;
`
`6.
`
` An order enjoining YouTube from withholding any known match of 10 seconds
`
`or more in length, for any reference file generated from a video that was the subject of a successful
`
`DMCA takedown notice from the copyright claimants identified in such notices;
`
`7.
`
`An order directing YouTube to provide, to any copyright owner who provides
`
`YouTube with a reference file, all matches longer than 10 seconds in length to any pre-existing
`
`video on YouTube and any video subsequently uploaded to YouTube;
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`An award of pre-judgment interest;
`
`An award of reasonable attorney’s fees and full costs;
`
`10.
`
`Any further relief that the Court may deem proper and just.
`
`For their claims for violation of the protections afforded under the DMCA to copyright
`
`management information, Plaintiffs seek the following relief:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`A judgment that each Defendant violated 17 USC §1202 of the DMCA;
`
`An award of statutory damages for each violation of Section 1202 in the range of
`
`$2,500 to $25,000 per violation;
`
`3.
`
`An order enjoining Defendants from stripping and failing to preserve any copyright
`
`management information contained in the CLFN metadata field of videos uploaded to YouTube;
`
`4.
`
`An order enjoining Defendants from distributing videos containing sound
`
`recordings of musical works without their associated ISRC Codes or, alternatively, directing
`
`Defendants to associate ISRC codes provided by any copyright claimant to any videos on
`
`YouTube that digitally match the sound recording of the provided ISRC code.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`JOINT PRETRIAL STATEMENT
`
`Case No. 3:20-cv-04423-JD
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-04423-JD Document 322 Filed 05/11/23 Page 12 of 27
`
`
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`B.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`requested.
`
`3.
`
`C.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`An award of pre-judgment interest;
`
`An award of reasonable attorney’s fees and full costs;
`
`Any further relief that the Court may deem proper and just.
`
`Defendants
`
`Defendants deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to any relief.
`
`Defendants request a judgment in favor of Defendants denying Plaintiffs all relief
`
`Defendants request an award of reasonable attorneys’ fee and costs.
`
`Counterclaim Plaintiffs
`
`10
`
`
`
`For their claim for violation of the 17 U.S.C. § 512(f), Counterclaim Plaintiffs seek the
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`following relief:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`A judgment that Counterclaim Defendants’ actions violated 17 U.S.C. § 512(f);
`
`A permanent injunction restraining Counterclaim Defendants and their employees,
`
`agents, alter egos, or any person or entity acting on their behalf or direction or under their control
`
`from violating 17 U.S.C. § 512(f);
`
`3.
`
`An award of compensatory damages sufficient to compensate Counterclaimants for
`
`the harm caused by Counterclaim Defendants’ conduct;
`
`4.
`
`An award of Counterclaimants’ reasonable attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs
`
`incurred in connection with the Counterclaims under 17 U.S.C. § 505;
`
`5.
`
`D.
`
`Any further relief that the Court may deem just and proper.
`
`Counterclaim Defendants
`
`Counterclaim Defendants deny that Counterclaim Plaintiffs are entitled to any relief, as
`
`detailed in their motion for summary judgment. See ECF No. 260. Counterclaim Defendants also
`
`assert the following affirmative defenses:
`
`1.
`
`that the claims asserted by Counterclaim Defendants are barred by the doctrine of
`
`unclean hands; and
`
`2.
`
`that the claims are barred by the doctrine of in pari delicto.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`JOINT PRETRIAL STATEMENT
`
`Case No. 3:20-cv-04423-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-04423-JD Document 322 Filed 05/11/23 Page 13 of 27
`
`
`
`III. UNDISPUTED FACTS
`
`A.
`
`Parties
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff Maria Schneider is a citizen of the State of New York.
`
`Plaintiff Uniglobe Entertainment, LLC is a Wyoming limited liability company
`
`with its principal place of business in Los Angeles County, California.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff AST Publishing Ltd. is a Russian company.
`
`Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff YouTube, LLC is a Delaware limited
`
`liability company with its principal place of business in San Bruno, California.
`
`5.
`
`Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff Google LLC is a Delaware limited liability
`
`company with its principal place of business in Mountain View, California.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`YouTube is a wholly owned and controlled subsidiary of Defendant Google.
`
`Counterclaim Defendant Pirate Monitor Ltd. is a limited company with its principal
`
`place of business in the British Virgin Islands.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Counterclaim Defendant Pirate Monitor LLC does not exist.
`
`Counterclaim Defendant Gabor Csupó is citizen of Hungary and a resident of the
`
`State of California.
`
`10.
`
`Counterclaim Defendant Csupó is the sole stockholder and managing director of
`
`Counterclaim Defendant Pirate Monitor LTD.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Pleadings
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiffs Schneider and Pirate Monitor Ltd. filed the Class Action Complaint on
`
`July 2, 2020.
`
`2.
`
`Defendants YouTube and Google filed their Answer and Counterclaims on
`
`September 21, 2020.
`
`3.
`
`Defendants YouTube and Google filed their Amended Counterclaims on February
`
`19, 2021.
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant Pirate Monitor Ltd. filed its Voluntary
`
`Dismissal Pursuant to Stipulation Under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) on March 8, 2021.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`JOINT PRETRIAL STATEMENT
`
`Case No. 3:20-cv-04423-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-04423-JD Document 322 Filed 05/11/23 Page 14 of 27
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`5.
`
`Counterclaim Defendant Pirate Monitor Ltd. filed its Answer to Defendants’
`
`Amended Counterclaims on March 12, 2021.
`
`6.
`
`Counterclaim Defendant Csupó filed his Answer to Defendants’ Amended
`
`Counterclaims on March 17, 2021.
`
`7.
`
`Plaintiffs Schneider, Uniglobe and AST filed their First Amended Class Action
`
`complaint on November 17, 2021.
`
`8.
`
`Defendants YouTube and Google filed their Answer and Counterclaims to the
`
`Amended Complaint on August 22, 2022.
`
`9.
`
`Counterclaim Defendant Pirate Monitor Ltd. filed its Answer to Defendants’
`
`Amended Counterclaims on March 12, 2021.
`
`10.
`
`Counterclaim Defendant Csupó filed his Answer to Defendants’ Amended
`
`Counterclaims on March 17, 2021.
`
`13
`
`
`
`C.
`
`Stipulated Facts Regarding Counterclaims
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Pirate Monitor LLC does not exist.
`
`Pirate Monitor Ltd. was dormant in 2019.
`
`Mr. Csupó acquired Pirate Monitor Ltd. in January 2020.
`
`Mr. Csupó did not own Pirate Monitor Ltd. in 2019.
`
`Videos that are the subject of the 1,975 DMCA takedown notices at issue in
`
`Defendants’ counterclaims were uploads authorized by their respective copyright owners.
`
`6.
`
`Videos that are the subject of the 1,975 DMCA takedown notices at issue in
`
`Defendants’ counterclaims were uploaded in four batches between August and November 2019.
`
`7.
`
`Gabor Csupó purchased Pirate Monitor Ltd. after submission of the 1,975
`
`takedown notices at issue in Defendants’ counterclaims.
`
`8.
`
`Pirate Monitor Ltd. entered into a License Agreement with MegaFilm dated
`
`January 24, 2020 for the rights to the usage of Juska Menni Amerika, Zimmer F