Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

69900

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 8, 2021 / Proposed Rules
1. Protective Orders The Office solicited comments related to the issuance of protective orders and the CCBs handling of confidential information, including whether the CCB
should adopt a standard model protective order.122 Commenters overwhelmingly endorsed the idea of a standard protective order established at the initiation of discovery, similar to the procedures used by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board TTAB.123 Some commenters argued that an Attorneys Eyes Only level of confidentiality would be inappropriate, as many parties likely will be proceeding pro se.124
Others, however, believed that such a designation for commercially sensitive information would be advisable.125
The Office agrees with the suggestion of providing a standard protective order to be issued at the request of any party.
Under the proposed rule, once requested by any party, this order will govern all discovery material exchanged over the course of the proceeding, and will provide that discovery material received from another party may only be used in connection with the proceeding and must be returned or disposed of at the conclusion of the proceeding. The parties may negotiate customized protective orders that include additional protections for highly sensitive materials. Customized protective orders must be approved by the CCB, and a request for deviation from the standard protective order must explain the need for such deviation.
The standard protective order will provide a single tier of confidentiality.
To promote public access and minimize the number of sealed filings, the proposed rule prohibits the bulk marking of documents as confidential and mandates that confidentiality designations be made on a documentby-document basis.
Confidential discovery materials, or any discussions thereof, may be submitted to the CCB in redacted form or filed under seal. If a document is filed under seal as part of written testimony, a redacted version of the document must be included in the public record. The proposed rule also requires the redaction of certain 122 86

FR 16162.
Reply NOI Comments at 6; Spotify Reply NOI Comments at 3; AIPLA Initial NOI
Comments at 7; Amazon Initial NOI Comments at 78; Copyright Alliance, et al. Initial NOI
Comments at 27; MPA, RIAA, SIIA Initial NOI
Comments at 1415.
124 Copyright Alliance, et al. Reply NOI
Comments at 16; MPA, RIAA & SIIA Initial NOI
Comments at 1415.
125 Spotify Reply NOI Comments at 3; Amazon Reply NOI Comments at 6.

jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS3

123 ABAIPL

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:27 Dec 07, 2021

Jkt 256001

personally identifiable information from public filings, regardless of whether the discovery material has been marked confidential.
2. Interrogatories Commenters favored a limit on the number of interrogatories permitted.126
One comment suggested that the CCB
promulgate a standard set of interrogatories tailored to particular categories of claims, with the option to add a limited number of additional questions of each partys choosing.127
Another comment suggested that parties be permitted to propound additional interrogatories beyond an initial limited number upon a showing of good cause.128
The Office has reviewed these suggestions and proposes that, absent leave, interrogatories in CCB
proceedings be limited to a standard set that is provided by the CCB through the its website. These standard interrogatories will, in all cases, solicit information related to witnesses, individuals with knowledge of the claims and defenses, relevant agreements between the parties, damages, and a description of relevant documents. The CCB will also promulgate standard interrogatories specifically tailored to the type of claims at issue. For example, a party asserting an infringement claim or responding to a non-infringement claim will respond to standard interrogatories that solicit information pertaining to the allegedly infringed works copyright registration, ownership, publication history, and creation, along with the basis of the partys belief that the opposing partys activities constitute infringement, the discovery of the alleged infringement, and any attempts to cause the infringement to be ceased or mitigated. A party responding to an infringement claim or asserting a noninfringement claim will respond to standard interrogatories that solicit information pertaining to the ownership, publication history, and creation of the allegedly infringing work, along with information pertaining to the partys defenses, any continued use of the allegedly infringing work, and any revenues or profits directly attributable to the allegedly infringing work.
126 Copyright Alliance, et al. Initial NOI
Comments at 23; Amazon Initial NOI Comments at 67; MPA, RIAA & SIAA Initial NOI Comments at 12.
127 Copyright Alliance, et al. Initial NOI
Comments at 23.
128 MPA, RIAA & SIAA Initial NOI Comments at 12.

PO 00000

Frm 00012

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

A party asserting a misrepresentation claim under 17 U.S.C. 512f will respond to standard interrogatories that solicit information pertaining to the notification or counter notification, the identity of and any relevant communications with the internet service provider in question or with others, the basis for the partys belief that the notification or counter notification contained a misrepresentation, and any harm caused by the alleged misrepresentation. A
party responding to a 512f misrepresentation claim will respond to standard interrogatories that solicit information pertaining to the basis for its defenses and any relevant communications with the internet service provider in question or with others.
Under the proposed rule, parties have an obligation to update their interrogatory responses, and serve these updated responses on the other parties, as soon as possible following the discovery of relevant new or updated information.
The Office welcomes any comments concerning the standard interrogatories set forth in the proposed rule and is specifically interested in any comments concerning any other categories of information the standard interrogatories should cover.
3. Requests for Admission Commenters favored similar limits on the number of requests for admission that may be served in CCB
proceedings.129 Under the proposed rule, parties may serve requests for admission on each other party concerning the facts, the application of law to facts, opinions about either, or the genuineness of documents. The Office proposes that the content of requests for admission be left to the discretion of parties rather than making use of standard forms. Requests for admission must be separately stated in numbered paragraphs, and responses are due thirty days after service. Matters admitted will be treated as conclusively established, unless the CCB permits an admission to be withdrawn or amended on request and for good cause shown. If a matter is not admitted, a party must specifically deny it or state in detail why the party cannot admit or deny it.
Any denial must fairly respond to the substance of the request, and an answer may specify that part of the request is admitted and then state what is denied.
A party may assert lack of knowledge or information in response to a request, but 129 Id.; Amazon Initial NOI Comments at 67;
CCIA & IA Initial NOI Comments at 45.

E:FRFM08DEP3.SGM

08DEP3