I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL, Inc. et al

Filing 697

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART Plaintiff's 277 Second Motion for Discovery Sanctions Regarding Untimely Discovery Responses; AND DENYING its 282 Third Motion for Discovery Sanctions Regarding Untimely Discovery Responses. Specifically, as to the Plaintiffs Second Motion, the Court ORDERS the Defendants to produce to the Plaintiff within two days of entry of this Order data that has not been produced as to Google, Inc.'s, revenues for its properties based in the United States and AUTHORIZES the Plaintiff to supplement the report of its damages expert, Dr. Stephen L. Becker, within two days thereafter. Furthermore, the Defendants may not cross-examine Dr. Becker on the omission in his initial report of Google, Inc.'s, revenues for its properties based in the United States. Although the Court DENIES the Plaintiff's Second Motion as to certain e-mails and information provided therein produced by the Defendants as Bates Nos. G-IPE-0888897,G-IPE-0888898-99, G-IPE-0888900, and G-IPE-888901-02, the Plaintiff is AUTHORIZED to supplement Dr. Becker's report to include these documents by Friday, October 12,2012. Finally, the Court DENIES the Plaintiffs Second Motion as to the Defendants' non-infringing alternatives contentions but AUTHORIZES the Plaintiff to supplement the report of its infringement expert, Dr. Ophir Frieder, to include these contentions by Friday, October 12, 2012. (See Order for All Specifics) Entered and filed 10/9/12. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Lawrence R. Leonard on 10/9/12). (ecav, )

Download PDF
FILED OCT -9 2012 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Norfolk Division CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT NORFOLK. VA I/P ENGINE, INC., Plaintiff, v ) ) ) ) AOL, INC., et al, Defendants. CaseNo.:2:ll-cv-512 ) ) ) ) ORDER On October 9, 2012, the Court heard oral argument on the Plaintiffs Second Motion for Discovery Sanctions Regarding Untimely Discovery Responses, ECF 277, and its Third Motion for Discovery Sanctions Regarding Untimely Discovery Responses, ECF 282. Jeffrey K. Sherwood, Esq., arguing the Second Motion, and Frank C. Cimino, Jr., arguing the Third Motion, represented the Plaintiff, and David L. Bilsker, Esq., arguing the Second Motion, and David A. Perlson, Esq., arguing the Third Motion, represented the Defendants. The Official Court Reporter was Sharon Borden. After reviewing the parties' briefs, hearing argument, and for the reasons stated on the record, the Court DENIES the Plaintiffs Third Motion and GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the Plaintiffs Second Motion. Specifically, as to the Plaintiffs Second Motion, the Court ORDERS the Defendants to produce to the Plaintiff within two days of entry of this Order data that has not been produced as to Google, Inc.'s, revenues for its properties based in the United States and AUTHORIZES the 1 Plaintiff to supplement the report of its damages expert, Dr. Stephen L. Becker, within two days thereafter. Furthermore, the Defendants may not cross-examine Dr. Becker on the omission in his initial report of Google, Inc.'s, revenues for its properties based in the United States. Although the Court DENIES the Plaintiffs Second Motion as to certain e-mails and information provided therein produced by the Defendants as Bates Nos. G-IPE-0888897, G-IPE-0888898-99, G-IPE-0888900, and G-IPE-888901-02, the Plaintiff is AUTHORIZED to supplement Dr. Becker's report to include these documents by Friday, October 12,2012. Finally, the Court DENIES the Plaintiffs Second Motion as to the Defendants' non-infringing alternatives contentions but AUTHORIZES the Plaintiff to supplement the report of its infringement expert, Dr. Ophir Frieder, to include these contentions by Friday, October 12, 2012. The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this Order to all counsel of record. IT IS SO ORDERED. Lawrence R. Leoriard United States Magistrate Judge Norfolk, Virginia October 9, 2012