`
`
`BEDFORD, FREEMAN & WORTH
`PUBLISHING GROUP, LLC d/b/a
`MACMILLAN LEARNING, et al.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 1:21-cv-01340-CMH-JFA
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-01340-CMH-JFA Document 61 Filed 04/22/22 Page 1 of 15 PageID# 900
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`SHOPIFY INC., et al.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’
`SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01340-CMH-JFA Document 61 Filed 04/22/22 Page 2 of 15 PageID# 901
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1
`Background ................................................................................................................................... 1
`A.
`The instant suit ............................................................................................................ 1
`B.
`State of discovery ........................................................................................................ 2
`C.
`The instant motion ...................................................................................................... 3
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................. 4
`Shopify must produce the digital files that Pirate Merchants uploaded to Shopify’s
`I.
`platform (RFP 33) ....................................................................................................... 4
`
`a. Shopify must produce the digital copies of Plaintiffs’ works, including
`works in suit, that the Pirate Merchants provided to Shopify ......................... 5
`
`b. Shopify must produce copies of other works the Pirate Merchants
`uploaded to Shopify ........................................................................................ 6
`
`c. The Fourth Circuit has rejected Shopify’s argument for not providing the
`digital files ...................................................................................................... 7
`
`d. Shopify’s insistence on delay serves no purpose and is infeasible ........... 7
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`Shopify must provide records of which Shopify services the Pirate Merchants
`utilized, and how (RFP 29) ......................................................................................... 8
`Shopify must produce information concerning how it has responded to other
`violations of its policies (ROGs 17, 18; RFP 44) ........................................................ 9
`Shopify must produce all communications concerning the Pirate Merchants, not
`merely those that Shopify believes concern infringement (RFP 32) ........................ 11
`Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` i
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01340-CMH-JFA Document 61 Filed 04/22/22 Page 3 of 15 PageID# 902
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Numerous merchants use defendant Shopify’s ecommerce platform to sell pirated digital
`
`copies of Plaintiffs’ textbooks and educational materials. Plaintiffs brought this suit against
`
`Shopify for secondary copyright and trademark infringement to hold Shopify responsible for
`
`facilitating, and profiting from, this infringement.
`
`In the instant Motion, Plaintiffs ask this Court to compel Shopify to produce four categories
`
`of discovery: 1) copies of the infringing eBooks and other digital files the merchants identified in
`
`Plaintiffs’ infringement notices uploaded to Shopify’s platform; 2) records depicting how the
`
`Shopify merchants identified in Plaintiffs’ infringement notices utilized Shopify’s services; 3)
`
`information and documents concerning Shopify’s response to other violations of its policies; and
`
`4) Shopify’s internal communications about the merchants identified in Plaintiffs’ infringement
`
`notices.
`
`These documents are important to multiple aspects of Plaintiffs’ claims and Shopify’s
`
`defenses, including showing that Shopify materially contributed to its merchants’ direct
`
`infringement, that Shopify had the ability to supervise the infringing activity on its platform, that
`
`Shopify benefitted financially form its merchants’ infringement, that Shopify acted willfully, and
`
`Shopify’s contention that it is entitled to the safe harbors from monetary liability under section 512
`
`of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`A. The instant suit
`
`Shopify is an e-commerce platform that assists individual retailers to set up online stores
`
`to sell products. Compl. ¶ 29. In particular, Shopify provides services to sellers of digital copies of
`
`books. Id. at ¶ 34. Among many other services, Shopify can host its merchants’ eBooks on
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 1
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01340-CMH-JFA Document 61 Filed 04/22/22 Page 4 of 15 PageID# 903
`
`
`
`Shopify’s servers, and deliver the eBook to the end customer. Id. at ¶¶ 2, 11(f). Unfortunately,
`
`numerous merchants use Shopify’s services to sell pirated digital copies of Plaintiffs’ textbooks
`
`and related pedagogical materials without authorization, thus infringing Plaintiffs’ copyrights and
`
`trademarks. Id. at ¶ 38.
`
`For more than four years before filing the instant suit, Plaintiffs notified Shopify of
`
`thousands of instances of infringement by merchants on its platform, including several merchants
`
`who infringed many works. Id. at ¶¶ 6, 57, 62. When the infringing activity nonetheless continued,
`
`Plaintiffs eventually brought the instant lawsuit in this Court, the U.S. venue in which Shopify is
`
`subject to personal jurisdiction. Shopify has challenged its susceptibility to U.S. legal process in
`
`the past, and promotes how it shields its merchants from legal action.1 Shopify recognized it has
`
`no basis to challenge personal jurisdiction in this suit. Answer (Dkt. 30), ¶¶ 8–12. Plaintiffs allege
`
`three counts: contributory copyright infringement, vicarious copyright infringement, and
`
`contributory trademark infringement. Compl. ¶¶ 81–103.
`
`B. State of discovery
`
`After numerous meet-and-confer calls, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel on April 15, 2022
`
`raising two issues: Shopify’s limiting nearly all of its discovery responses to what Shopify
`
`incorrectly called the statute of limitations period; and Shopify withholding information
`
`documenting its receipt, but refusal to take any action on (effectively ignoring), DMCA-compliant
`
`infringement notices. ECF 59. That motion is pending.
`
`
`1 See Shopify 2021 Transparency Report, https://www.shopify.com/security/transparency-
`report/report-2021.
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01340-CMH-JFA Document 61 Filed 04/22/22 Page 5 of 15 PageID# 904
`
`
`
`C. The instant motion
`
`In the instant motion Plaintiffs move to compel Shopify to produce four categories of
`
`documents.
`
`First, with respect to the Shopify merchants identified in Plaintiffs’ infringement notices
`
`(“Pirate Merchants”), Shopify must produce any digital files containing copies of Plaintiffs’ works,
`
`including works in suit, that those merchants provided to Shopify. In addition, Shopify must
`
`produce copies of any other digital files that the Pirate Merchants provided to Shopify. Part I, infra
`
`(RFP 33).
`
`Second, Shopify offers its merchants a menu of services that aid in the sale of infringing
`
`eBooks. Thus, Shopify must provide records sufficient to shown which services the Pirate
`
`Merchants actually utilized. Part II, infra (RFP 29).
`
`Third, Shopify must produce information concerning how it has responded to other
`
`violations of its policies, including how many users it has terminated for violations of its acceptable
`
`use policy other than infringement, how many users it has terminated for failing to pay amounts
`
`owed to Shopify, and any reports or analyses in its possession concerning fraud and other illegal
`
`activity on Shopify’s platform. Part III, infra (ROGs 17, 18; RFP 44).
`
`Fourth, Shopify must not limit its production of communications concerning the Pirate
`
`Merchants to just those documents that Shopify believes concern infringement. Part IV, infra (RFP
`
`32).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 3
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01340-CMH-JFA Document 61 Filed 04/22/22 Page 6 of 15 PageID# 905
`
`
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`I.
`
`Shopify must produce the digital files that Pirate Merchants uploaded to Shopify’s
`platform (RFP 33)
`
`Plaintiffs requested all digital files that the Pirate Merchants uploaded to Shopify servers.
`
`Ex. 1, Shopify Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production, Request for
`
`Production No. 33 (requesting “All information or digital files provided to You by or on behalf of
`
`any Accused Shopify Merchant, including, without limitation…the digital copies of books they
`
`uploaded for sale.”). Shopify refuses to provide these files. Id. at Response to Request for
`
`Production No. 33 (“Shopify will not produce copies of any digital files or digital copies of books
`
`that any Accused Shopify Merchant uploaded for sale or otherwise provided to Shopify.”). Shopify
`
`likewise has refused to inform Plaintiffs whether the Pirate Merchants provided Shopify with
`
`digital files at all, or whether Shopify still possesses any such files.
`
`Shopify instead agreed to provide only two things. First, Shopify will provide an inventory
`
`list of items that each Pirate Merchant was selling via Shopify. Id., Response to RFP 33. Second,
`
`Shopify will indicate whether each Pirate Merchant downloaded Shopify’s Digital Downloads
`
`application. Ex. 2, Email Chain between Latham and O+Z, p. 5 ¶ B. Shopify’s counsel represented
`
`that to the extent merchants uploaded files to Shopify, they would have done so only through the
`
`Digital Downloads app. But, according to Shopify’s counsel, the information Shopify is providing
`
`will not indicate whether each merchant actually used the app to upload digital copies of works to
`
`Shopify. Id. In other words, Shopify has refused to produce the digital files themselves, and has
`
`refused to provide information as to whether each of the merchants uploaded digital files to
`
`Shopify.
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01340-CMH-JFA Document 61 Filed 04/22/22 Page 7 of 15 PageID# 906
`
`
`
`Other courts have recognized the importance of digital files in copyright infringement
`
`cases, and ordered it produced. In Viacom Int’l Inc. v. YouTube Inc., 253 F.R.D. 256, 261 (S.D.N.Y.
`
`2008), the court ordered the defendants to produce “millions” of videos that were removed from
`
`YouTube “for any reason” so that plaintiffs could “identify which (if any) infringe their alleged
`
`copyrights”. Plaintiffs here have made a much narrower request—that Shopify produce the digital
`
`files uploaded by the Pirate Merchants. See also Arista Recs. LLC v. Usenet.com, Inc., 608 F. Supp.
`
`2d 409, 433 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (“Defendants did have an obligation to preserve and produce the
`
`requested…Digital Music Files” that were alleged to be infringing).
`
`Likewise, Shopify must produce 1) all digital copies of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works,
`
`including the works in this suit, that the Pirate Merchants uploaded to Shopify servers; and 2) all
`
`copies of other works that those merchants uploaded to Shopify servers.2
`
`a. Shopify must produce the digital copies of Plaintiffs’ works, including works
`in suit, that the Pirate Merchants provided to Shopify
`
`The digital files Plaintiffs request are important for multiple reasons. In particular, the
`
`digital copies of the works in question are highly probative to the issue of contributory
`
`infringement. “A contributory infringer is one who, (1) with knowledge of the infringing activity,
`
`(2) induces, causes or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another.” Sony Music Ent.
`
`v. Cox Commc’ns, Inc., 464 F. Supp. 3d 795, 815 (E.D. Va. 2020) (internal quotations and
`
`alterations omitted). That Shopify stored digital copies of infringing eBooks and provided those
`
`files to end purchasers shows that Shopify materially contributed to the infringing conduct of its
`
`merchants. Likewise, the digital copies themselves are relevant to Shopify’s knowledge, as the
`
`
`2 If helpful to Shopify, Plaintiffs can limit this request to eBooks only.
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01340-CMH-JFA Document 61 Filed 04/22/22 Page 8 of 15 PageID# 907
`
`
`
`files no doubt contain copyright and trademark notices that were accessible to Shopify. And,
`
`naturally, the digital files serve as additional proof of the Pirate Merchants’ direct infringement.
`
`Further, the digital files are highly probative on the first element of Plaintiffs’ vicarious
`
`infringement claim. “Vicarious liability holds a defendant accountable for third-party infringement
`
`if he (1) possessed the right and ability to supervise the infringing activity; and (2) possessed an
`
`obvious and direct financial interest in the exploited copyrighted materials.” Sony Music Ent., 464
`
`F. Supp. 3d at 813 (internal quotations and alterations omitted). That Shopify stored infringing
`
`files for its merchants, for Shopify’s fulfillment to the merchant’s customers, shows that Shopify
`
`had the ability to supervise its merchants’ infringement. Shopify must produce these files.
`
`b. Shopify must produce copies of other works the Pirate Merchants uploaded to
`Shopify
`
`Shopify also must produce all digital files it has of other works that Pirate Merchants
`
`uploaded to Shopify. A review of the Pirate Merchants’ other infringing files will provide support
`
`for the proposition that the Pirate Merchant’s inventory was largely or entirely pirated items and,
`
`thus, make Shopify’s decision not to terminate their accounts, or otherwise stop their infringement,
`
`that much more unreasonable. In addition, Shopify has indicated that it intends to argue that at
`
`least some of the merchants in question were not “pure” pirate merchants, but in fact were selling
`
`a mix of infringing and non-infringing content. Plaintiffs must have sufficient information to test,
`
`and rebut, this argument. In hopes of reducing the necessary discovery, Plaintiffs asked Shopify
`
`simply to stipulate that they would not offer such an argument in this case. But Shopify declined
`
`to do so.
`
`Shopify must produce these digital files as well.
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 6
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01340-CMH-JFA Document 61 Filed 04/22/22 Page 9 of 15 PageID# 908
`
`
`
`c. The Fourth Circuit has rejected Shopify’s argument for not providing the
`digital files
`
`During meet-and-confers on this issue, Shopify’s counsel stated that it could not provide
`
`to Plaintiffs digital files of copyrighted works because doing so could violate the rights of other
`
`copyright holders. Caselaw squarely refutes this contention. The Fourth Circuit has held that the
`
`use of a copyrighted work in litigation can qualify for the fair use exception to copyright
`
`infringement, and that “the societal benefit of having all relevant information presented in a
`
`judicial proceeding” outweighs the author’s rights with respect to his work. Bond v. Blum, 317 F.3d
`
`385, 396 (4th Cir. 2003), abrogated on other grounds, Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 579
`
`U.S. 197 (2016). Other courts have reached the same conclusion. See, e.g., Jartech, Inc. v. Clancy,
`
`666 F.2d 403, 407 (9th Cir. 1982) (upholding a finding that reproducing a copyrighted work for
`
`use as evidence in a nuisance abatement action constituted fair use); Stern v. Does, 978 F. Supp.
`
`2d 1031, 1047 (C.D. Cal. 2011) (“Reproduction of copyrighted material for use in litigation or
`
`potential litigation is generally fair use, even if the material is copied in whole.”).
`
`d. Shopify’s insistence on delay serves no purpose and is infeasible
`
`Rather than produce these files before the May 2 document discovery deadline, Shopify
`
`believes that Plaintiffs should wait until Shopify produces the inventory lists and, afterwards,
`
`request specific files for specific Pirate Merchants. Such a delay is unreasonable. There is no
`
`purpose to waiting; Shopify will need to produce digital files for all of the titles appearing on the
`
`inventory list. Nothing about the inventory list would obviate the need for a full and proper
`
`production. Moreover, given the fast-approaching deadline that the parties are obligated to meet
`
`in this case, Shopify’s desired delay is infeasible.
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 7
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01340-CMH-JFA Document 61 Filed 04/22/22 Page 10 of 15 PageID# 909
`
`
`
`II.
`
`Shopify must provide records of which Shopify services the Pirate Merchants
`utilized, and how (RFP 29)
`
`Plaintiffs requested “[d]ocuments sufficient to identify Shopify’s provision of products or
`
`services to any Accused Shopify Merchant and the extent of the Accused Shopify Merchant’s
`
`utilization of those products and services.” Ex. 1, RFP 29. Shopify has agreed to identify the
`
`Shopify service plan in which each Pirate Merchant was enrolled, and to list the products and
`
`services available under that plan. Id., Response to RFP 29. Shopify further stated that “Shopify is
`
`also producing a number of details regarding each Accused Merchant’s utilization of its platform,
`
`such as information related to orders, products, and Shopify Payments.” Ex. 2, p. 5 ¶ C. But
`
`Shopify has declined to explain which Pirate Merchants actually used which services, and how.
`
`Shopify must provide this information.
`
`Shopify offers numerous services that aid in the sale of infringing eBooks. For example,
`
`Shopify’s Digital Downloads app helps merchants sell digital products. A merchant can upload its
`
`digital file to Shopify,3 then a customer can download the file upon purchase.4 Shopify’s Inbox app
`
`allows merchants to communicate directly with end customers.5 Shopify’s Vitals app provides
`
`marketing services like discount offers, tiered pricing, reviews consolidation, and related product
`
`suggestions.6 Shopify’s Google channel helps users make their products appear in Google search
`
`results, create Google ad campaigns, list their products on Google Shopping, and process orders
`
`using Buy on Google.7 And Shopify’s Facebook channel allows users to sell their products through
`
`
`3 https://help.shopify.com/en/manual/products/digital-service-product/digital-downloads
`4 https://apps.shopify.com/digital-downloads.
`5 https://apps.shopify.com/inbox?surface_inter_position=1&surface_intra_position=16&
`surface_type=category
`6 https://apps.shopify.com/vitals?surface_inter_position=1&surface_intra_position=
`4&surface_type=category
`7 https://apps.shopify.com/google
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 8
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01340-CMH-JFA Document 61 Filed 04/22/22 Page 11 of 15 PageID# 910
`
`
`
`Facebook and Instagram.8 A merchant’s use of these Shopify services, among others, would help
`
`show that Shopify materially contributed to that merchant’s direct infringement.
`
`Furthermore, to the extent Shopify was being paid for these services, those payments are
`
`relevant to the financial benefit prong of vicarious liability, i.e., whether Shopify possessed an
`
`obvious and direct financial interest in the infringing materials. Sony Music Ent., 464 F. Supp. 3d
`
`at 813. For example, the Vitals app is a paid service.9 And Shopify notes that it can be paid by
`
`Google when Shopify merchants use Shopify’s Google channel.10 That compensation is highly
`
`relevant to the financial benefit prong of vicarious infringement.
`
`Shopify’s counsel has indicated that it “cannot ascertain what products or services
`
`individual merchants used”, Ex. 2, p.5 ¶ C, but that does not seem possible. Usage data is critical
`
`to the operations of technology companies like Shopify; it is implausible that Shopify did not track
`
`usage in some form.
`
`III.
`
`Shopify must produce information concerning how it has responded to other
`violations of its policies (ROGs 17, 18; RFP 44)
`
`Plaintiffs asked for three forms of discovery concerning Shopify’s response to violations
`
`of its policies outside of the infringement context. Plaintiffs asked Shopify to state in how many
`
`instances Shopify terminated a user for violations other than copyright or trademark infringement
`
`(ROG 17) and in how many instances Shopify terminated a user for failing to pay amounts owed
`
`to Shopify (ROG 18). Ex. 3, Shopify’s Responses to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories,
`
`Interrogatory Nos. 17, 18. Shopify refused to respond to either of these interrogatories. Id. at
`
`
`8 https://apps.shopify.com/facebook?surface_inter_position=1&surface_intra_position
`=8&surface_type=category
`9 https://apps.shopify.com/vitals?surface_inter_position=1&surface_intra_position=4&
`surface_type=category
`10 https://apps.shopify.com/google
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 9
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01340-CMH-JFA Document 61 Filed 04/22/22 Page 12 of 15 PageID# 911
`
`
`
`Response Nos. 17, 18. Plaintiffs likewise requested “[a]ll documents constituting or concerning
`
`reports, studies, research, presentations, or analysis concerning fraud or other illegal activity by
`
`Shopify Merchants.” Ex. 1, RFP 44. By its terms, this request is limited to reports that are already
`
`compiled, and their related existing documents. In other words, Plaintiffs are not asking Shopify
`
`to create these reports, only to turn over any reports that have already been generated. Shopify,
`
`however, stated it would only produce documents concerning copyright or trademark
`
`infringement. Ex. 1, Response to RFP 44.
`
`This discovery is important to Plaintiffs’ claims and to Shopify’s defenses. Documents
`
`showing that Shopify has terminated users for other offenses show that Shopify had the right and
`
`ability to supervise or control infringing activity (the second prong of vicarious liability, Sony
`
`Music Ent., 464 F. Supp. 3d at 813). Other courts considering whether a defendant had such an
`
`ability to supervise have looked to whether the defendant could and did penalize violators of the
`
`defendant’s other policies. Usenet, 633 F. Supp. 2d at 157 (court relied on the fact that defendant
`
`had terminated or limited the access of users who posted “spam” or who downloaded a
`
`disproportionate volume of content); Arista Records, Inc. v. MP3Board, Inc., No. 00 CIV. 4660,
`
`2002 WL 1997918, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2002) (court relied on fact that defendant had
`
`terminated users for posting links to pornography, hate, and illegally copied commercial software).
`
`This discovery is also relevant to willfulness, a key consideration in statutory damages, 17
`
`U.S.C. § 504(c)(1)–(2). Evidence that Shopify terminated subscribers for other offenses, but chose
`
`not to do so for infringement, helps to show that Shopify acted willfully.
`
`Moreover, to the extent that Shopify argues it is reluctant to terminate merchants because
`
`termination is an extreme remedy (for example, because merchants rely on their Shopify stores to
`
`earn income), Plaintiffs must have access to the evidence that would support or contradict that
`
` 10
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01340-CMH-JFA Document 61 Filed 04/22/22 Page 13 of 15 PageID# 912
`
`
`
`argument. In Sony v. Cox, for example, this Court ordered Cox to state how many subscribers it
`
`terminated for violating Cox’s Acceptable Use Policy for reasons other than infringement, and it
`
`required Cox to state how many users it terminated for failing to pay amounts owed to Cox. Sony
`
`Music Ent. v. Cox Commc’ns, Inc., 18-cv-00950, Dkt. 93 at 9–10 (E.D. Va. Feb. 1, 2019) (Ex. 4).
`
`When Cox argued at trial that it was reluctant to terminate customers because of the vital role its
`
`services play in its customers’ lives, the Court allowed the plaintiffs to present the evidence of
`
`termination for non-payment. Sony Music Ent., 18-cv-00950, Dkt. 626 (E.D. Va. Dec. 3, 2019)
`
`(Ex. 5).
`
`On top of the foregoing, public reports indicate that Shopify’s platform is rife with illegal
`
`activity. One report found that 21% of Shopify stores are fraudulent in some way, such as selling
`
`counterfeit or infringing products or simply not delivering products.11 To the extent that Shopify
`
`seeks to present the infringing activity alleged in this suit as a small problem that is inconsistent
`
`with the larger activity on its platform, Plaintiffs must be able to rebut that argument.
`
`The volume of information and documents sought here is minimal. Shopify should not be
`
`allowed to withhold this important evidence.
`
`IV.
`
`Shopify must produce all communications concerning the Pirate Merchants, not
`merely those that Shopify believes concern infringement (RFP 32)
`
`Plaintiffs requested “[a]ll documents, including notes, comments, or communications,
`
`concerning Shopify’s communications with any Accused Shopify Merchant.” Ex. 1, RFP 32.
`
`Shopify has limited its response to communications concerning infringement. Ex. 2, p. 5 ¶ A
`
`
`11 John Koetsier, FORBES, Analysis Of 124,044 Shopify Stores Says 25,788 Are
`Fraudulent Or Dangerous (Jan. 18, 2021), https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkoetsier
`/2021/01/18/analysis-of-124044-shopify-stores-says-25788-are-fraudulent-or-
`dangerous/?sh=78deb2a13cd5
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 11
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01340-CMH-JFA Document 61 Filed 04/22/22 Page 14 of 15 PageID# 913
`
`
`
`(stating that Shopify will produce “all communications about any Accused Merchant related to
`
`infringement” but that “Shopify will not…produce communications about Accused Merchants
`
`related to fraud or other illegal activities that do not include copyright or trademark
`
`infringement.”). Nor has Shopify agreed to search for the term “eBook” in response to this request.
`
`All of these communications are relevant.
`
`There is no justification for limiting communications about the Pirate Merchants to
`
`communications concerning copyright or trademark infringement. Communications with the
`
`Pirate Merchants likely will show Shopify materially contributing to the Pirate Merchants’
`
`infringement, even if the communication does not explicitly concern infringement. For example,
`
`Shopify’s customer service team may have helped a merchant set up an ad campaign for eBooks.
`
`Or a technical support team may have helped a merchant store an eBook on Shopify’s servers, or
`
`deliver eBooks to an end purchaser. Any such communications would be evidence of Shopify
`
`materially contributing to a merchant’s direct infringement, whether they use the term
`
`“infringement” or not.
`
`Likewise, communications about nefarious activities besides infringement, such as illegal
`
`activity or violations of Shopify’s other policies, are relevant to Shopify’s knowledge and
`
`willfulness. A failure to terminate a repeat infringer is all the more knowing and willful if Shopify
`
`knew that the merchant was engaged in other forbidden activity.
`
`What’s more, Shopify declined to search its communications for terms like “fraud”, “illegal
`
`activity”, or “AUP violations”. Ex. 2, p. 1 ¶ 3 and p. 3 ¶ 3. Of course, communications about
`
`infringement may not use the literal word “infringement”, but might instead contain more generic
`
`terminology. So, even if Shopify were correct that it should search only for communications
`
`concerning infringement, these terms would need to be included in a reasonable search. Shopify
`
` 12
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01340-CMH-JFA Document 61 Filed 04/22/22 Page 15 of 15 PageID# 914
`
`
`
`claims, “It is our understanding based on a reasonable investigation that, in every instance, Shopify
`
`personnel have referred to alleged infringement as ‘infringement’ and not some other generic term
`
`like ‘fraud’.” Ex. 2, p. 1 ¶ 3. Shopify has not found infringement-related communications that use
`
`those terms because Shopify has refused to search for those terms. Such a refusal is unreasonable.
`
`All these communications should be produced.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court order Shopify to produce: 1) copies of the
`
`infringing eBooks and other digital files sold through Shopify’s platform by Pirate Merchants; 2)
`
`records depicting how the Pirate Merchants utilized Shopify’s services and how; 3) information
`
`and documents concerning Shopify’s response to other violations of its policies; and 4) Shopify’s
`
`internal communications about the Pirate Merchants.
`
`
`
`Dated April 22, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 13
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/s/ Scott A. Zebrak /
`Scott A. Zebrak (38729)
`Matthew J. Oppenheim (pro hac vice)
`Michele H. Murphy (pro hac vice)
`Corey Miller (pro hac vice)
`Jeff Kane (pro hac vice)
`OPPENHEIM + ZEBRAK, LLP
`4530 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, 5th Floor
`Washington, DC 20015
`Tel: 202-480-2999
`scott@oandzlaw.com
`matt@oandzlaw.com
`michele@oandzlaw.com
`corey@oandzlaw.com
`jkane@oandzlaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`
`
`