GolTV, Inc. et al v. Fox Sports Latin America Ltd. et alRESPONSE to Motion re MOTION for Leave to File Brief Reply to Plaintiffs' May 29, 2018 Response to Clarify the Factual RecordS.D. Fla.June 6, 2018 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 1:16-CV-24431-ALTONAGA/McAliley GOLTV, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, -against- FOX SPORTS LATIN AMERICA, LTD, et al., Defendants. PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO GOVERNMENT’S MOTION TO JUDGE MCALILEY FOR LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY Plaintiffs respectfully submit this response to the government’s motion for leave to file a reply (the “Motion”) (ECF Nos. 395, 398). Plaintiffs do not object to the government’s filing of a reply but submit this response to explain why the government’s suggestions that Plaintiffs’ May 29, 2018 Response (the “Response”) (ECF No. 391) was misleading and that the factual record needs clarification are mistaken. Specifically, the government states that Plaintiffs’ Response is misleading because it does not “disclose” the government’s e-mail response to Plaintiffs’ offer to give the government “an opportunity to redact information contained in the presentations to the extent it reveals the government’s thoughts and processes.” Resp. 3; Mot. 1. In particular, the government asserts, based not on its firsthand knowledge but on representations made to it by Defendant Torneos’ counsel, that any factual information contained in the presentations would be “entirely cumulative” of information that is contained in other documents that Defendant Torneos will be producing to Plaintiffs. Mot. 2. However, the fact that information may also be provided to Plaintiffs in another Case 1:16-cv-24431-CMA Document 399 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2018 Page 1 of 3 2 form is not a valid objection to discovery and, in this case, Plaintiffs should not have to rely on Defendant Torneos’ assertion that all the underlying factual information is contained somewhere in the no doubt voluminous collection of documents that it has yet to produce. The government’s argument to the contrary is, essentially, a “reply argument,” with which Plaintiffs disagree. As noted above, Plaintiffs do not object to the government filing a reply in order to present that argument, but the assertion that Plaintiffs should have presented it for them, and that it was misleading of Plaintiffs not to do so, is mistaken. Dated: June 6, 2018 Peter H. Levitt (FBN 650978) Stephen B. Gillman (FBN 196734) /s/ Julissa Reynoso Seth C. Farber (pro hac vice) Julissa Reynoso (pro hac vice) George Mastoris (pro hac vice) Marcelo Blackburn (pro hac vice) Cristina I. Calvar (FBN 114201) Michael A. Fernández (pro hac vice) Lauren Duxstad (pro hac vice) Ariel Flint (pro hac vice) SHUTTS & BOWEN LLP 200 South Biscayne Boulevard Suite 4100 Miami, FL 33131 Tel.: (305) 358-6300 Fax: (305) 381-9982 plevitt@shutts.com sgillman@shutts.com WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166-4193 Tel.: (212) 294-6700 Fax: (212) 294-4700 sfarber@winston.com jreynoso@winston.com gmastoris@winston.com mblackburn@winston.com ccalvar@winston.com mafernandez@winston.com lduxstad@winston.com aflint@winston.com Counsel for Plaintiffs GolTV, Inc. and Global Sports Partners LLP Case 1:16-cv-24431-CMA Document 399 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2018 Page 2 of 3 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 6th day of June, 2018, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record. /s/ Cristina I. Calvar Case 1:16-cv-24431-CMA Document 399 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2018 Page 3 of 3
