Li 3?3
If"
a,

 

LUJN

~10th

BROWN WHITE OSBORN LLP
THOMAS M. BROWN (Bar No. 117449)
tbrown brownwh1te1aw.com

KE P. WHITE (Bar No. 173993)
kwhite@brownwh1telaw.com

333 South Ho Street, 40th Floor

Los Angeles, alifomia 90071-1406
Telephone: 213. 613.0500

Facsm'nle: 213.613.0550

Attorneys for Non?Party
FLOOR64, INC. 
MICHAEL DAVID MASNICK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN DIEGO COMIC CONVENTION, a Case NO.: 14?cV-1865 AJB (JMA)
California non?pro?t corporation,
Judge: Judge

Plaintiff,
NON-PARTY FLOOR64, INC.

V. OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES
TO PLAINTIFF SAN DIEGO
DAN FARR PRODUCTIONS, a Utah COMIC 
limited liability company, et al., SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE
DOCUMENTS, INFORMATION,
Defendants. OR OBJECTS OR TO PERMIT
INSPECTION OF PREMISES IN A
CIVIL ACTION

Date: March 17, 2017
Time: 10:00 am.
Place: Van uard Legal Solutions

370 onventlon Wa 
Redwood City, CA 4063

 

 

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR RESPECTIVE ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT non-party Floor64, Inc. c/o Michael David

Masnick (?Masnick?) Objects to Plaintiff San Diego Comic Convention?s 

Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of

Premises in a Civil Action as follows:

 

OBJECTION TO SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS, INFORMATION,
OR OBJECTS OR TO PERMIT INSPECTION OF PREMISIS IN A CIVIL ACTION

 

i" I aT ?r 53RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO SUBPOENA

Non?party witness Floor64, Inc. (?Witness?) hereby objects and responds to
Plaintiff?s subpoena.

Witness objects to the subpoena to the extent it calls for attorney?client
privileged communications or attorney work product. Based on that objection,
Witness will not produce any of its communications with its undersigned counsel
regarding the subpoena, nor its counsel?s work product concerning the subpoena.

With respect to requests 10, 11,12,13, l4, 15,16,17,18,
19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25, Witness responds that Witness has no responsive
documents in its care, custody, and control, and to Witnesses? knowledge no
responsive documents have ever existed.

With respect to request 7, seeking ?All documents concerning SDCC or any
SDCC convention,? Witness responds that the request is overbroad, burdensome,
harassing, not reasonably calculated to lead to production of admissible evidence, and
seeks documents equally available to Plaintiff. Witness operates a popular blog,
Techdirt.com, that has covered legal issues surrounding technology and internet
culture since 1997. Plaintiff has served this subpoena because Witness has published
two posts critical of Plaintiff?s case. The public posts Witness has published about
SDCC or mentioning SDCC are equally available to Plaintiff at
or 
It would be extremely burdensome and expensive for Witness to
review 20 years of records of reporting to determine if it has any document
mentioning SDCC or any SDCC convention, whether or not those documents have
any relationship to this case. Moreover, Plaintiff?s motive to seek such a wide range
of documents unrelated to this case is clearly to harass and retaliate against Witness
for critical coverage of Plaintiff? case. Moreover, Witness objects pursuant to
California Evidence Code 1070 that the subpoena seeks unpublished information

from a publisher. O'Grady v. Superior Court, 139 Cal. App.4th 1423 (Cal. Ct. App.
2

OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS, INFORMATION,
OR OBJECTS OR TO PERMIT 0F PREMISIS IN A CIVIL ACTION

 

 Rammeaaesaem 

 

arr-r ?exiEE-?iath 

 





 

 

2006) [Section 1070 protects online news magazine]. Witness stands on its objections
and will not produce documents in response to this request.
Witness objects to Request No. 26 to the extent is seeks more than is required
by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45.
DATED: February 28, 2017 Respectfully submitted,-
BROWN WHITE OSBORN LLP




THOMAS M. BROWN
KENNETH P. WHITE
Attorneys for Non-Party
FLOOR64, INC. 
MICHAEL DAVID MASNICK



 

OBJECTION TO SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUM ENTS, INFORMATION,
OR OBJECTS OR TO PERMIT INSPECTION OF PREMISIS IN A CIVIL ACTION