Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 771-11 Filed 08/18/22 Page 1 of 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`IN RE: PERSONAL WEB TECHNOLOGIES,
`LLC ET AL., PATENT LITIGATION,
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC., and AMAZON WEB
`SERVICES, INC.,
`Plaintiffs
`
`v.
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC and
`LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`Defendants.
`
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, and
`LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`TWITCH INTERACTIVE, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING
`WITHOUT PREJUDICE AMAZON’S
`MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE
`WITH COURT ORDER BY BRILLIANT
`DIGITAL ENTERTAINMENT, INC.,
`CLARIA INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`EUROPLAY CAPITAL ADVISORS,
`LLC, AND MONTO HOLDINGS PTY
`LTD AND DENYING REQUEST FOR
`SANCTIONS
`
`4641602V1 | 101334-0002
`[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING
`AMAZON’S MTC RFPS
`
`
`
`1
`
`CASE NOS. 5:18-md-02834-BLF,
`5:18-cv-00767-BLF, and
`5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`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
`
`FRANDZEL ROBINS BLOOM & CSATO, L.C.
`
`1000 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, NINETEENTH FLOOR
`
`LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2427
`
`(323) 852-1000
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 771-11 Filed 08/18/22 Page 2 of 11
`
`
`
`Before the Court is the motion of Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Web Services, Inc. and Twitch
`Interactive, Inc. (collectively, “Amazon”) to compel compliance with this Court’s order by third
`parties Brilliant Digital Entertainment, Inc., (“BDE”) Claria Innovations, LLC (“Claria”), Europlay
`Capital Advisors, LLC (“ECA”), and Monto Holdings PTY LTD (“Monto”) (collectively, the “Third
`Parties” or “Respondents”) and request for sanctions. The Court has reviewed the Parties’
`submissions (Joint Statement, Joint Charts) and relevant case law and determines that the matter is
`suitable for resolution without oral argument. Civ.L.R.7-1(b).
`Background
`A.
`Amazon is pursuing post-judgment discovery from the Third Parties which are secured
`lenders to PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC (“PersonalWeb”) seeking information about their
`relationship and financial dealings with PersonalWeb. Dkt. 733-1, 733-2, 733-3.
`On April 12, 2022, the Court issued its Order Granting Amazon’s Motion to Compel
`Production From Third Parties, Dkt. 738. (“April 12, 2022 Order.”)1 As stated therein, the primary,
`if not only, issue addressed was the Third Parties’ blanket objection to the subpoenas based on the
`Receivership Order issued by the Los Angeles County Superior Court in Brilliant Digital
`Entertainment, et al. v. PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC et al., LASC Case No. 21VECV00575.2
`The Court overruled that objection, ruling that “Amazon may explore corporate relationships and
`transfers in pursuit of alter ego theories.” (Dkt. 738 at 2-3.) The Court granted Amazon’s Motion
`and Ordered: “The Third Parties, as defined in the subpoenas, shall each provide Amazon responses
`to the requests for production and produce any non-protected, responsive documents within any of
`their possession, custody, or control within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order.”
`The 14 day deadline stated in the April 12, 2022 Order (April 26, 2022) was extended to
`May 26, 2022, by a stipulated order entered April 26, 2022 (Dkt. 746), in which the Third Parties
`“agree[d] to provide complete responses to the requests for production consistent with the Court’s
`
`
`1 The Order, and the corresponding motion to compel by Amazon, was directed to Respondents
`BDE, ECA and Claria only. Monto was not a party to that proceeding. Amazon provides the
`subsequently served Monto subpoena as Exhibit 1.
`2 The Court gives no credence to Amazon’s assertion that the Receivership is the product of a
`conspiracy to which Third Parties are supposedly parties because it is unsupported by any
`evidence and, at bottom, is not relevant to the issues raised by this motion.
`4641602V1 | 101334-0002
`CASE NOS. 5:18-md-02834-BLF,
`[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING
`5:18-cv-00767-BLF, and
`AMAZON’S MTC RFPS
`5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`2
`
`
`
`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
`
`FRANDZEL ROBINS BLOOM & CSATO, L.C.
`
`1000 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, NINETEENTH FLOOR
`
`LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2427
`
`(323) 852-1000
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 771-11 Filed 08/18/22 Page 3 of 11
`
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`previous orders” and which added Monto, which had not been a party to the previous motion or a
`party to the Order. Pursuant to the Stipulation, Monto agreed to accept service of its subpoena,
`waived jurisdiction defenses with respect to the subpoena, and agreed, along with the other Third
`Parties, to provide Amazon complete responses and to produce documents and their privilege log
`by May 26, 2022. Thereafter, by stipulated Order entered May 18, 2022, the Third Parties’ time for
`producing responsive documents and a privilege log was extended to June 27, 2022. (Dkt. 750.)
`On May 26, 2022, Third Parties served their respective responses. The Responses restated,
`and in some instances, explained the basis for specific objections to certain of the Requests.
`(Exhibits 2, 3, 4 and 5.) Counsel for the parties report that on June 17, 2022, counsel engaged meet
`and confer telephone calls totaling approximately one and a half hours, without reaching any
`agreement. Thereafter, on June 23, 2022 counsel for Third Parties provided draft Joint Charts for
`each Respondent, stating their respective proposed compromises. On June 27, 2022 and thereafter,
`Third Parties produced responsive documents claimed to be in compliance with the April 12, 2022
`Order, consistent with its positions stated in the Joint Charts and provided a privilege log with in
`excess of 50,000 documents logged. On Saturday, August 6, 2022 Amazon provided counsel for
`Third Parties its proposed compromises, to which Third Parties responded on August 16, 2022. (See
`Exhibits 6-9.)
`Unsatisfied with Third Parties’ Responses, their suggested Compromises, and the document
`production, Amazon brings this motion, which Third Parties oppose.
`Amazon’s Position
`B.
`Amazon argues that months have passed and the Third Parties are treating this Court’s order
`as an optional suggestion as to what documents they should produce. Amazon claims that on May
`26, Third Parties served new written responses: (i) asserting numerous previously waived or
`abandoned objections, (ii) refusing to produce documents in response to some requests, (iii)
`unilaterally limiting the scope of their search for documents, and (iv) refusing to log certain
`documents withheld under a claim of privilege. (See Exs. 2-54444444.) Amazon requests that the
`Court order Third Parties to comply “fully” with the order and sanction them for their refusal to
`comply. Amazon argues:
`
`4641602V1 | 101334-0002
`[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING
`AMAZON’S MTC RFPS
`
`
`
`3
`
`CASE NOS. 5:18-md-02834-BLF,
`5:18-cv-00767-BLF, and
`5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`FRANDZEL ROBINS BLOOM & CSATO, L.C.
`
`1000 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, NINETEENTH FLOOR
`
`LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2427
`
`(323) 852-1000
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 771-11 Filed 08/18/22 Page 4 of 11
`
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`Waived/Abandoned Objections: Amazon claims that the Court ordered Third Parties
`(i)
`to provide responses to the requests for production without objection and to produce any non-
`privileged, nonprotected responsive documents. (Citing Dkt. 738 at 3.) It argues that Third Parties’
`obligation is to comply, not to raise an entirely new set of objections that they waived by not
`asserting them originally or by abandoning them when Amazon first moved to compel. See Kigasari
`v. Burrows, (“Rossi”) Civ. A. No. 20-cv-01521-JST (SK), Dkt. 75 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2022) (slip
`op.) (finding party waived objections to requests for production not timely raised); Dep’t. of Toxic
`Substances Control v. Rossi, Civ. A. No. 20-cv-01049-VC (RMI), 2022 WL 19355, at *3 (N.D. Cal.
`Jan. 3, 2022) (“Rossi”) (“[T]he court finds that Defendants have abandoned all of the objections
`which they raised in boilerplate fashion in response to the discovery requests but that were not
`presented and developed in response to Plaintiff’s motions to compel.”). Amazon claims that the
`Court overruled Third Parties’ objections in compelling responses and to produce documents.
`(Citing Dkt. 738 at 3.) Amazon further argues that the Third Parties explicitly agreed to abide by
`this Court’s orders to respond without non-privilege objections. (Citing Dkt. 750 at 1-2 (Third
`Parties “agree to provide complete responses to the requests for production consistent with the
`Court’s previous orders”).) Amazon argues that Third Parties may not just choose a few objections
`to litigate on a motion to compel and save other objections for after the Court orders production.
`(ii)
`Limiting Scope of Search: Many responses limit the scope of search and production
`in violation of the order. (See Ex. 6 (Chart-BDE) (Nos. 3, 10, 12, 33, 41, and 44); Ex. 7 (Chart-
`Claria) (Nos. 10 and 42-44); Ex. 8 (Chart-ECA) (Nos. 10, 12, 33, 41, and 43-45); Ex. 9 (Chart-
`Monto) (Nos. 33 and 41-45).
`(iii) Privilege Log/Objections: For many responses, insiders assert privilege objections
`but then refuse to log withheld documents. (See Ex. 2 (BDE) at 12-13 and 33-34 (Nos. 10 and 42);
`Ex. 3 (Claria) at 10 and 26-29 (Nos. 10 and 42-44); Ex. 4 (ECA) at 11-13, 25-27, and 29-35 (Nos.
`10, 12, 33, 41-45, and 47);
`Amazon further claims that it has agreed to a number of compromises as shown in the Joint
`Charts.
`Amazon further claims, that neither the Third Parties nor their counsel, Frandzel Robins
`
`4641602V1 | 101334-0002
`[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING
`AMAZON’S MTC RFPS
`
`
`
`4
`
`CASE NOS. 5:18-md-02834-BLF,
`5:18-cv-00767-BLF, and
`5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`FRANDZEL ROBINS BLOOM & CSATO, L.C.
`
`1000 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, NINETEENTH FLOOR
`
`LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2427
`
`(323) 852-1000
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 771-11 Filed 08/18/22 Page 5 of 11
`
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`Bloom & Csato, L.C., have adequate excuse for what it characterizes as their “disregard” of the
`Court’s prior order, and the Court should direct them to reimburse Amazon its reasonable attorney
`fees and costs incurred in obtaining compliance. While pointing to the Responses as evidence of
`Third Parties conduct that is supposedly sanctionable, Amazon provides no facts pointing to any
`sanctionable conduct by counsel themselves.
`Third Parties’ Position
`C.
`Third Parties oppose the Motion on a number of grounds. Citing the Requests, they argue
`that Amazon seeks to compel “all documents and communications” regarding each Respondent’s
`business and operations for a period of 40 years (30 years before PersonalWeb was formed), as to
`Monto, a period of 26 years (15 years before PersonalWeb was formed) as to BDE, a period of 20
`years (nine years before PersonalWeb was formed) as to ECA (which it claims indirectly owns only
`a 9.8% interest in PersonalWeb and only holds approximately 5.3% of PersonalWeb’s debt), and a
`period of 10 years as to Claria. Third Parties argue that the only issues to which Amazon claims a
`right to the information sought in the subpoenas deal with the existence and whereabouts of
`PersonalWeb assets or whether an alter ego relationship currently exists between one or more of
`Respondents and PersonalWeb or between themselves. By definition, Third Parties argue, both
`issues, at most, involve documents created since PersonalWeb was formed and largely deal with
`documents created within the last 3-5 years. Third Parties point out that during the Joint Chart
`process, Amazon has now agreed to limit the scope of a number of Requests to January 1, 2010, a
`date that is acceptable to them as to many of the Requests.
`In response to Amazon’s claims that Third Parties are guilty of a wholesale refusal to fully
`comply with the subpoenas and the Court’s April 12, 2022 Order, Third Parties point out that of the
`48 Requests served on each Respondent, Amazon only challenges 7 as to BDE, 7 as to Monto, 8 as
`to ECA and 4 as to Claria. (Amazon Statement, p. 2.) They claim that none of the challenged
`responses deal with a refusal to produce all or any non-privileged documents (or a refusal to log all
`privileged documents) relating to PersonalWeb, each Respondent’s dealings with that entity, or
`documents relating to matters between themselves. Significantly, Amazon does not dispute this
`claim.
`
`4641602V1 | 101334-0002
`[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING
`AMAZON’S MTC RFPS
`
`
`
`5
`
`CASE NOS. 5:18-md-02834-BLF,
`5:18-cv-00767-BLF, and
`5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`FRANDZEL ROBINS BLOOM & CSATO, L.C.
`
`1000 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, NINETEENTH FLOOR
`
`LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2427
`
`(323) 852-1000
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 771-11 Filed 08/18/22 Page 6 of 11
`
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`As can be seen from the Joint Charts, there are a small number of disputes that appear to be
`fully resolved and a number that are partially resolved. Third Parties claim that most of Amazon’s
`complaints are with responses in which Respondents express a willingness to produce documents
`“sufficient to show” the subject of the Request, while Amazon adamantly demands “all documents
`and communications …,”regarding same. Monto, BDE and ECA also seek to draw a line based on
`burden and financial privacy with respect to their respective commercial activities with third parties
`wholly unconnected with PersonalWeb or between themselves.
`Third Parties BDE, ECA and Claria also argue that the objections stated in the Responses
`are no different than those originally raised in the original Responses and have not been waived or
`abandoned these, that in any event, the Court has discretion to consider objections in unusual
`circumstances as appear here, and that, consistent with this Court’s Standing Order, federal courts
`recognize a right of privacy in response to discovery.
`Discussion
`D.
`Amazon’s argument that each of the four Third Parties has waived or abandoned any
`objections to the subpoenas not raised in opposition to the original motion to compel is rejected.
`First, Amazon’s waiver/abandonment argument does not apply to Monto. There is no dispute that
`Monto was not served with its subpoena until after issuance of the April 12, 2022 Order. While
`Monto agreed to be bound by the Order, its current objections are the first it has raised.
`Second, the cases cited by Amazon are inapposite. Kigasari dealt with a waiver due to
`failure to raise an objection in the original response to the subpoena. Here, the objections raised in
`the Responses do not raise new grounds. Rather, they more fully explain the claimed basis for same.
`Rossi relied on cases that invoked the waiver/abandonment rule which appear to have arisen in the
`context of a traditional motion to compel, where the parties were operating under a joint statement
`format akin to the Northern District Local Rule 37-2. In such a case, a finding that the respondent
`waived or abandoned any objections made to the original request not restated in opposition to the
`motion to compel makes sense. Even though Rossi arose in the context of letter briefing akin to this
`Court’s Standing Order, reliance on the waiver/abandonment rule made sense because individual
`responses were directly challenged by the moving party, and the opposing party only used a fraction
`
`4641602V1 | 101334-0002
`[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING
`AMAZON’S MTC RFPS
`
`
`
`6
`
`CASE NOS. 5:18-md-02834-BLF,
`5:18-cv-00767-BLF, and
`5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`FRANDZEL ROBINS BLOOM & CSATO, L.C.
`
`1000 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, NINETEENTH FLOOR
`
`LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2427
`
`(323) 852-1000
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 771-11 Filed 08/18/22 Page 7 of 11
`
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`of the allotted space to respond. Moreover, unlike the case here, as noted by the court, the opposing
`party appeared to switch objections from those originally stated.
`Unlike the situation before the court in Rossi, the sole focus of the Joint Statement addressed
`by this Court’s April 12, 2022 Order (Dkt. 335) was on the single objection by BDE, ECA and Claria
`regarding the Receivership Order and Injunction. It appears that this issue had been the sole focus
`of the parties’ predicate meet and confer session (a proposition Amazon does not dispute). There
`was no need to address objections raised as to specific requests given the nature of the objection
`based on the Receivership Order, since, if the Court had sustained same, there would have been no
`need to address objections to individual Requests.
`Moreover, in Rossi, the court made specific findings of waiver and abandonment while the
`April 12, 2022 Order did not. Contrary to Amazon’s characterization, the April 12, 2022 Order does
`not state or suggest that the ordered response must be “without objection.” Although the Court
`rejected the argument of BDE, ECA and Claria regarding the Receivership Order, it did not address,
`nor was it called upon to address, the objections to the individual Requests. The Order expressly
`contemplated continued objections for privilege and “protected” material, defined in the Court’s
`Standing Order as including “privacy” -- which is the principal objection at issue here beyond the
`privilege objections.3
`Contrary to Amazon’s position, federal courts do recognize a right of privacy that can be
`raised in response to discovery requests, especially in the context of a Rule 45 subpoena. See Rule
`45(d)(3)(B)(i) (protecting “commercial information”), Moon v. SCP Pool Corp., 232 F.R.D. 633,
`637 (C.D. Cal. 2005). (“Moon”) See Premier Services Corp. v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., 511 F.2d
`225, 229 (9th Cir. 1975) Nypl v. JPMorgan Chase Co., 803 Fed. Appx. 135, 137 (9th Cir. 2020), both
`of which recognized financial privacy objections to corporate entities.
`Even if the Court was to conclude that BDE, ECA and Claria had been required to argue
`their other objections in Opposition to Amazon’s motion to compel, the Court has broad discretion
`to consider these Respondents’ objections along with those of Monto. Even in the face of a
`nonparty’s failure to make timely objections to a Rule 45 subpoena, “in unusual circumstances and
`
`3 Again, the waiver and abandonment argument does not apply to Monto.
`4641602V1 | 101334-0002
`CASE NOS. 5:18-md-02834-BLF,
`[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING
`5:18-cv-00767-BLF, and
`AMAZON’S MTC RFPS
`5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`7
`
`
`
`FRANDZEL ROBINS BLOOM & CSATO, L.C.
`
`1000 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, NINETEENTH FLOOR
`
`LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2427
`
`(323) 852-1000
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 771-11 Filed 08/18/22 Page 8 of 11
`
`
`
`for good cause, the failure to act timely will not bar consideration of objections to a Rule 45
`subpoena.” Moon, 232 F.R.D. at 636. Unusual circumstances can include a subpoena that is
`overbroad on its face and exceeds the bounds of fair discovery. (Id.) Moreover, “undue burden to
`the party is evaluated under both Rule 26 and Rule 45.” Glass Egg Digital Media v. Game lift, Inc.,
`2019 WL 4166786 (N.D. Cal. September 3, 2019). Further, “under Rule 26(c), the Court may sua
`sponte grant a protective order for good cause shown . . . and in the inherent discretion of a court to
`manage its own discovery . . .” Acer Inc. v. Technology Properties Ltd., 2010 WL 4807101 at *3
`(N.D. Cal. November 19, 2010).
`“[U]nder Rule 45(c)(3)(A), now 45(d)(3)(A) an evaluation of undue burden requires the
`court to weigh the burden to the subpoenaed party against the value of the information to the serving
`party and, in particular, requires the Court to consider such factors as relevance, the need for the
`party for the documents, the breadth of the document requests, the time period covered by it, the
`particularity with which the documents are described and the burden imposed.” Moon, 232 F.R.D.
`at 637. Moon found that various requests were “overbroad on their face and exceed the bounds of
`fair discovery since they seek documents covering over a ten-year-or-greater period” and seek
`“‘commercial information’ . . . related to nonparty KSA’s business relationship with other nonparties
`. . . .” (Id., at 638.)
`Here, Amazon has itself recognized the extreme overbreadth of its Requests purporting to
`require production of “all documents and communications,” spanning 10, 20, 26 and 40 years by
`agreeing to limit the scope of many of the Requests to January 1, 2010, a reasonable time before
`PersonalWeb was formed.4 A number of the Reqeusts seek commercial information as to
`Respondents’ business relationships with third parties wholly unrelated to PersonalWeb or each
`other. (See e.g., Request Nos. 44 (“All documents and communications relating to Your business
`operations, including without limitations documents related to meetings of the Board of Directors
`and/or meetings of managers, minutes, votes, and resolutions").) Amazon nowhere cogently
`
`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`FRANDZEL ROBINS BLOOM & CSATO, L.C.
`
`1000 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, NINETEENTH FLOOR
`
`LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2427
`
`(323) 852-1000
`
`
`
`
`4 The Court notes that Amazon did not offer to limit the scope of its Requests to January 1, 2010,
`until well after Respondents began producing documents and that Respondents BDE, Monto and
`ECA agreed to produce documents responsive to certain Requests relating to periods prior to that
`date.
`4641602V1 | 101334-0002
`[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING
`AMAZON’S MTC RFPS
`
`8
`
`CASE NOS. 5:18-md-02834-BLF,
`5:18-cv-00767-BLF, and
`5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 771-11 Filed 08/18/22 Page 9 of 11
`
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`explains why its discovery into PersonalWeb assets or as to potential alter ego relationships between
`Third Parties and PersonalWeb (or between themselves), it needs “all documents and
`communications” (as opposed to “documents sufficient to show” same) as to Third Parties’
`respective businesses from January 1, 2010 to the present. Nor does it cogently explain why it needs
`“all documents and communications” relating to Third Parties’ respective commercial activity
`unrelated to PersonalWeb since PersonalWeb was created, and why documents “sufficient to show”
`same is not enough.
`Respondents’ Joint Chart submissions address each challenged Request and, the Court finds,
`state reasonable solutions to their respective objections. Each Third Party claims to have markedly
`different business and materially different interests in PersonalWeb. BDE states, through a wholly
`owned subsidiary, Kinetech, that it is an approximate 69% owner of PersonalWeb and that it holds
`approximately 28% of its debt. From 1996-2006 it was a public company, and is producing its 10Ks
`and 10Qs filed with the SEC during that period and its board of directors documents thereafter. As
`its Joint Chart shows, BDE is providing all non-privileged PersonalWeb-related documents and
`documents “sufficient to show” virtually all of the non-PersonalWeb information Amazon seeks;
`however, Amazon adamantly insists on “all documents and communications” regarding its business
`activities and information as to all persons who have ever invested in it (beyond the current 63
`shareholders and those from October 2017). The Court finds that this is grossly overbroad and
`disproportionate to Amazon’s legitimate needs. BDE’s objections are sustained and it is not required
`to respond or produce documents beyond its stated compromise position.
`Monto, an Australian company formed in 1982, states that it holds approximately 20%
`ownership in PersonalWeb and approximately 64% of its debt, and that it has an 18% interest in
`BDE. Its sole business is to hold and invest in publicly traded securities and its loans to PersonalWeb
`and BDE. Having produced redacted year end brokerage statements going back seven years to 2015
`and current (May 2022) statements showing the balances in the accounts as of these dates, and its
`Australian public filings and the other documents it has produced, Monto has more than fairly
`responded to the subpoena. Thus, its objections are sustained and its response and production shall
`be limited as stated in its Joint Chart.
`
`4641602V1 | 101334-0002
`[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING
`AMAZON’S MTC RFPS
`
`
`
`9
`
`CASE NOS. 5:18-md-02834-BLF,
`5:18-cv-00767-BLF, and
`5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`FRANDZEL ROBINS BLOOM & CSATO, L.C.
`
`1000 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, NINETEENTH FLOOR
`
`LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2427
`
`(323) 852-1000
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 771-11 Filed 08/18/22 Page 10 of 11
`
`
`
`ECA, formed in 2002, claims to have numerous lines of business wholly unrelated to
`PersonalWeb (in which it claims to indirectly hold only a 9.8% ownership interest and 5.3% of its
`debt), one of which is providing litigation advice and support to clients. The Court agrees that
`allowing Amazon to seek “all documents and communications” or even documents “sufficient to
`show” these relationships and/or its interests in litigation wholly unconnected with PersonalWeb
`that are not publicly available or requiring ECA to disclose same in a privilege log could cause an
`intolerable disruption of what on their face appear to be extremely sensitive privileged and
`confidential relationships -- none of which appear to even remotely touch, concern or have anything
`to do with PersonalWeb or the other Respondents. Amazon’s argument for why it purportedly needs
`this information (see ECA Joint Chart for Request No. 43, pp. 12-14) are, as ECA points out, a “non
`sequitur.” ECA’s proposed compromises on each of the contested Requests more than adequately
`fulfills Amazon’s legitimate discovery needs. Accordingly, ECA’s objections are sustained and its
`responses and document production shall be limited as stated in its Joint Chart.
`Given Claria’s position as stated in its Joint Chart (formed shortly before PersonalWeb was
`formed, now holds no interest in PersonalWeb and only 2.99% of its debt -- with no ongoing
`business), virtually all of the issues with its responses appear to have been resolved.
`Finally, as Third Parties point out, after it has reviewed the documents being produced,
`Amazon can still seek to have same supplemented upon a reasonable showing that the produced
`documents do not adequately respond to Amazon’s legitimate discovery needs and, if necessary,
`bring a further notice before the Court.
`Accordingly, Amazon’s motion to compel is DENIED, without prejudice, in full as to all
`Third Parties. In view of this ruling, Amazon’s motion for sanctions is DENIED.
`
`
`
`Dated: ______________, 2022
`
`SUSAN VAN KEULEN
`United States Magistrate Judge
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4641602V1 | 101334-0002
`[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING
`AMAZON’S MTC RFPS
`
`10
`
`CASE NOS. 5:18-md-02834-BLF,
`5:18-cv-00767-BLF, and
`5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`FRANDZEL ROBINS BLOOM & CSATO, L.C.
`
`1000 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, NINETEENTH FLOOR
`
`LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2427
`
`(323) 852-1000
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 771-11 Filed 08/18/22 Page 11 of 11
`
`
`
`
`Presented by
`FRANDZEL ROBINS BLOOM & CSATO, L.C.
`
`
`By: ______________________
` THOMAS M. ROBINS III attorneys for
`BRILLIANT DIGITAL
`ENTERTAINMENT, INC.; EUROPLAY
`CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC; CLARIA
`INNOVATIONS, LLC; MONTO
`HOLDINGS PTY LIMITED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`4641602V1 | 101334-0002
`[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING
`AMAZON’S MTC RFPS
`
`
`
`11
`
`CASE NOS. 5:18-md-02834-BLF,
`5:18-cv-00767-BLF, and
`5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`FRANDZEL ROBINS BLOOM & CSATO, L.C.
`
`1000 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, NINETEENTH FLOOR
`
`LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2427
`
`(323) 852-1000
`
`