Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00718/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00718-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Comcast of California III, Inc.
Plaintiff
Jacques Tardif
Defendant
Stephane Tardif
Defendant

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

COMCAST OF CALIFORNIA III, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

STEPHANE TARDIF, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-05-0718 EMC

ORDER RE EVIDENTIARY HEARING

FOR PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

DEFAULT JUDGMENT

(Docket Nos. 15, 17)

Plaintiff Comcast of California III, Inc. filed suit against Defendants Stephane Tardif and

Jacques Tardif for (1) violation of the Cable Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 553; (2) unjust

enrichment; (3) imposition of a constructive trust; and (4) violation of California Penal Code § 593d. 

The Clerk of the Court entered default against Defendants on July 22, 2005, and thereafter Comcast

moved for default judgment.

On August 1, 2005, the Court ordered Comcast to provide additional briefing and evidence

in support of its motion. Comcast did so and, after reviewing the papers, the Court ordered further

briefing. On October 21, 2005, Comcast provided the Court with additional information. In its

briefing, Comcast asked to be awarded damages, consisting of Defendants’ gross revenues, in the

amount of $1,009,512.90 pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 553(c)(3)(A)(i). Comcast also asked for $50,000

in enhanced statutory damages pursuant to § 553(c)(3)(B). 

Having considered the information provided by Comcast, the Court hereby orders that there

be an evidentiary hearing on Comcast’s motion for default judgment. The hearing shall take place

on November 23, 2005, at 2:30 p.m.

Case 3:05-cv-00718-CRB Document 35 Filed 11/01/05 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

At the hearing, Comcast should be prepared to present any and all argument and evidence in

support of its claim for damages, including but not limited to the following matters.

1. The statute of limitations for a violation of § 553.

2. The scope of the PayPal subpoena and the documents produced in response, including

how Comcast determined which e-mail accounts were relevant and whether the documents produced

in response provided information about transactions outside the statute of limitations.

3. The reliability of the process by which Kevin Sandle determined Defendants’ gross

revenues, including how Mr. Sandle ensured that the keyword searches he used were not

overinclusive. For example, was the keyword search “media and 2200” a boolean search? Also,

how did Mr. Sandle make sure that the keyword search for “platinum” would not include a product

that was not an illegal cable descrambler?

4. Whether the products identified by Mr. Sandle as illegal cable descrambling devices

have no other legitimate purpose.

5. Whether the products identified by Mr. Sandle as illegal cable descrambling devices are

capable of descrambling Comcast’s signal.

Because Comcast’s claim for damages rests in large part on the declaration of Mr. Sandle,

Comcast should present Mr. Sandle to testify in person at the evidentiary hearing.

 Comcast shall serve a copy of this order on Defendants within a week of the filing date of

this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: November 1, 2005

_________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-00718-CRB Document 35 Filed 11/01/05 Page 2 of 2