|
DOCUMENT REQUESTS
REQUEST NO. 1
All documents and things identified, mentioned, referenced in, reviewed or relied upon in the
preparation of Defendants answers to Plaintiff's first set of interrogatories.
RESPONSE
To the extent that these documents exist and are not protected against discovery by the work
product and attorney client privileges, they will be produced. In addition, to the extent that
documents were reviewed in connection with interrogatories to which Mishkoff objects because the
interrogatory seeks information beyond the scope of discovery, those documents are not being produced
for the same reason that objection was made to the interrogatories.
REQUEST NO. 2
All other documents that Defendants intend or expect to rely upon at trial or at any hearing in
this lawsuit.
RESPONSE
To the extent that this request seeks documents that are relevant only to the trademark claims,
objection because discovery has been re-opened only with respect to the copyright claims in this case.
Answering with respect to the copyright claim, those documents will be produced.
REQUEST NO. 3
All documents relating to sales by WebFeats and/or Mishkoff during the period January, 1999 to
present, including specifically orders, shipping confirmations, bills and invoices.
RESPONSE
The request is overbroad and unreasonable and seeks documents that are not relevant to the claim
or defense of any parties to the copyright claim in this case, which is the only matter that remains
open for discovery; nor is the requested information reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. Plaintiff is not entitled to all documents pertaining to Mishkoff's business, but
only documents relating to business that he acquired by reason of the alleged infringement. In fact,
none of defendant's business and none of defendant's revenues were causally related in any way to the
alleged infringement, and, consequently, there are no relevant documents to produce. In addition,
financial information from 1999 or 2002 is irrelevant because defendant's use ceased in October 2001,
and because Mishkoff has no reason to believe that the materials that he copied from Taubman's web
site were available to him as early as 1999. (Indeed, Taubman has refused to produce information
showing when the first public display began).
REQUEST NO. 4
All documents relating to profits of Defendants for the period January 1999 to present, including
but not limited to annual reports, tax returns and profit/loss statements
RESPONSE
The request is overbroad and unreasonable and seeks documents that are not relevant to the claim
or defense of any parties to the copyright claim in this case, which is the only matter that remains
open for discovery; nor is the requested information reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. Plaintiff is not entitled to all documents pertaining to Mishkoff's business, but
only documents relating to business that he acquired by reason of the alleged infringement. In fact,
none of defendant's business and none of defendant's revenues were causally related in any way to the
alleged infringement, and, consequently, there are no relevant documents to produce. In addition,
financial information from 1999 or 2002 is irrelevant because defendant's use ceased in October 2001,
and because Mishkoff has no reason to believe that the materials that he copied from Taubman's web
site were available to him as early as 1999. (Indeed, Taubman has refused to produce information
showing when the first public display began).
REQUEST NO. 5
All documents on which you may rely to show costs incurred in gross profits to establish net
profits.
RESPONSE
The request is overbroad and unreasonable and seeks documents that are not relevant to the claim
or defense of any parties to the copyright claim in this case, which is the only matter that remains
open for discovery; nor is the requested information reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. Plaintiff is not entitled to all documents pertaining to Mishkoff's business, but
only documents relating to business that he acquired by reason of the alleged infringement. In fact,
none of defendant's business and none of defendant's revenues were causally related in any way to the
alleged infringement, and, consequently, there are no relevant documents to produce. In addition,
financial information from 1999 or 2002 is irrelevant because defendant's use ceased in October 2001,
and because Mishkoff has no reason to believe that the materials that he copied from Taubman's web
site were available to him as early as 1999. (Indeed, Taubman has refused to produce information
showing when the first public display began).
REQUEST NO. 6
All documents relating [in] any manner to any of your visits to Michigan, and/or business with any
Michigan resident, personally or on behalf of WebFeats.
RESPONSE
Objection in part. Neither Mishkoff nor WebFeats (which is not a separate entity) has done
business with any Michigan resident. Mishkoff's last visit to Michigan was in the year 2000; the
available documentation will be provided. The next most recent trip to Michigan that he can recall was
in the year 1997, which is too remote in time to be relevant to any issue in this case, and trying to
find any documentation from that trip, if any exists, would be unduly burdensome; hence, defendant
objects to the request insofar as it seeks documents regarding that trip or any earlier trip.
REQUEST NO. 7
All documents relating to revenue realized by WebFeats and/or Mishkoff from web page design,
database management and/or database creation from January 1999 to present.
RESPONSE
The request is overbroad and unreasonable, and seeks documents that are not relevant to the claim
or defense of any parties to the copyright claim in this case, which is the only matter that remains
open for discovery; nor is the requested information reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. Plaintiff is not entitled to all documents pertaining to Mishkoff's business, but
only documents relating to business that he acquired by reason of the alleged infringement. In fact,
none of defendant's business and none of defendant's revenues were causally related in any way to the
alleged infringement, and, consequently, there are no relevant documents to produce. In addition,
financial information from 1999 or 2002 is irrelevant because defendant's use ceased in October 2001,
and because Mishkoff has no reason to believe that the materials that he copied from Taubman's web
site were available to him as early as 1999. (Indeed, Taubman has refused to produce information
showing when the first public display began) .
REQUEST NO. 8
All documents relating to revenue realized by WebFeats and/or Mishkoff and relating in any way to
the computer industry or to the worldwide web internet, from January 1999 to the present.
RESPONSE
The request is overbroad and unreasonable and seeks documents that are not relevant to the claim
or defense of any parties to the copyright claim in this case, which is the only matter that remains
open for discovery; nor is the requested information reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. Plaintiff is not entitled to all documents pertaining to Mishkoff's business, but
only documents relating to business that he acquired by reason of the alleged infringement. In fact,
none of defendant's business and none of defendant's revenues were causally related in any way to the
alleged infringement, and, consequently, there are no relevant documents to produce. In addition,
financial information from 1999 or 2002 is irrelevant because defendant's use ceased in October 2001,
and because Mishkoff has no reason to believe that the materials that he copied from Taubman's web
site were available to him as early as 1999. (Indeed, Taubman has refused to produce information
showing when the first public display began).
REQUEST NO. 9
All documents which evidence or relate to the transfer of the domain names by WebFeats and/or
Mishkoff.
RESPONSE
Objection. Discovery relating to the trademark issues expired earlier this year, and in reopening
discovery, the Court expressly limited the discovery to the copyright claims. The transfer of domain
names has no bearing whatsoever on the copyright claims. Therefore, this request seeks documents that
are not relevant to the claim or defense of any parties to the copyright claim in this case, which is
the only matter that remains open for discovery; nor is the requested information reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence on that issue.
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, that the foregoing
interrogatory answers, insofar as they set forth facts rather than stating legal positions, are true
and correct. Executed on May 29, 2002.
On the objections and answers that call for legal conclusions and statements of legal position:
Barbara Harvey (P25478)
Suite 3060
Penobscot Building
645 Griswold
Detroit, Michigan 48226
(313) 963-3570
Paul Alan Levy (DC Bar 946400)
Public Citizen Litigation Group
1600 - 20th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20009
(202) 588-1000
Attorneys for Defendants
May 29, 2002
| 
