Bedrock Computer Technologies, LLC v. Softlayer Technologies, Inc. et al
NOTICE by Google Inc. of Objections to Plaintiff's Pre-trial Disclosures (Jones, Michael)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION
Bedrock Computer Technologies LLC, Plaintiff, v. Softlayer Technologies, Inc., et al., Defendants. Case No. 6:09-CV-269-LED JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
GOOGLE'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF BEDROCK COMPUTER TECHNOLOGIES, LLC'S PRE-TRIAL DISCLOSURES Pursuant to Paragraph 7 of the Court's Discovery Order and the Docket Control Order, Dkt. No. 556, Defendant Google Inc. ("Google") respectfully submits the following objections to Plaintiff Bedrock Computer Technologies LLC's ("Bedrock") pre-trial disclosures. Google reserves all of its rights to make any additional objections to Bedrock's pre-trial disclosures. By making these objections, Google does not waive any right or argument associated with Google's pending motions in limine and pending motions to strike expert testimony.
Objections to Bedrock's Contentions in the Joint Pretrial Order 1. Google objects to Bedrock's contention that Google infringes by "making, using,
offering for sale, selling, and/or importing various products and/or services in the United States." According to Bedrock, it accuses Google solely of using Linux code on its servers. 2. Google objects to any implication by Bedrock that willfulness will be at issue
during the main trial. The Court has ordered the willfulness issue to be tried, if necessary, separately after the jury's verdict.
Google objects to any implication by Bedrock that it is alleging anything other
than literal direct infringement. Bedrock admits that it is not asserting contributory infringement, inducement, or doctrine of equivalents. II. Objections to Bedrock's Witnesses Google objects to the following on Bedrock's Witness List: 1. Google objects that Bedrock refuses to bring David Garrod, Bedrock's President,
to testify live at trial. Dr. Garrod is one of only three Bedrock shareholders and Bedrock's sole officer. Dr. Garrod also has unique knowledge regarding issues crucial to trial that no other Bedrock shareholder has, including Bedrock's negotiations with each of the settling defendants whose license form the basis of Bedrock's damages expert opinion--nearly half of which were not entered at the time of Dr. Garrod's deposition. Google has requested that Bedrock accept service of a trial subpoena; Bedrock refuses. Google continues to attempt service of a trial subpoena on Dr. Garrod, but have thus far been unable to serve him. Dr. Garrod should be compelled to attend the trial to provide live testimony in the case. 2. Google objects that Bedrock has thus far refused to accept service of a trial
subpoena for Richard Nemes. Dr. Nemes is the named inventor of the patent-in-suit and is listed as a "will call" witness for Bedrock, yet Bedrock has thus far refused to accept service of a trial subpoena on behalf of Dr. Nemes. 3. Google objects to the scope of the testimony of Roy Weinstein, based on the
previously filed Daubert motion to exclude and strike his testimony, as well as certain pending motions in limine, including numbers 1, 2, 3 and 7.
Google objects to the scope of the testimony of Mark Jones, based on the
previously filed Daubert motion to exclude and strike his testimony, as well as certain pending motions in limine, including numbers 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 11. 5. Google generally objects to Bedrock's deposition designations for Sunil Daluvoy.
Google identified Mr. Daluvoy as Google's 30(b)(6) witness for topics related to licensing. Given the opinions set forth in Mr. Weinstein's damages report, Mr. Daluvoy's testimony has no relevance to the issues in this case and would be a waste of jury time. 6. Google generally objects to Bedrock's deposition designations for Neena
Budhiraja. Google identified Ms. Budhiraja as Google's 30(b)(6) witness for topics related to financial documents Google produced in the case reflecting Google's revenues. Given the opinions set forth in Mr. Weinstein's damages report, and as fully set forth in Defendants' pending Daubert and motions in limine, Ms. Budhiraja's testimony has no relevance to the issues in this case, would be prejudicial to Google and would be a waste of jury time. III. Other Objections Google's objections to Bedrock's exhibit list and its objections and counterdesignations to Bedrock's deposition designations are being filed contemporaneously as exhibits to the parties' Joint Pretrial Order.
Dated: March 18, 2011
/s/ Evette D. Pennypacker (with permission by Michael E. Jones) Michael E. Jones State Bar No. 10929400 POTTER MINTON 110 N. College Tyler, Texas 75702 Telephone: (903) 597-8311 Facsimile: (903) 593-0846 Email: email@example.com Claude M. Stern Evette D. Pennypacker Todd M. Briggs QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 555 Twin Dolphin Dr., Suite 560 Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Telephone: 650-801-5000 Facsimile: 650-801-5100 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Email: email@example.com ATTORNEYS FOR GOOGLE INC. and MATCH.COM, LLC
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via the Court's CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3) on this 18th day of March 2011. Any other counsel of record will be served by first class mail. /s/ Michael E. Jones Michael E. Jones
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets were retrieved from PACER, and should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.