Perfect 10 Inc v. Google Inc et al

Filing 375

STATEMENT Regarding the Court's Minute Order Regarding the Status Conference of October 6, 2008 filed by Counter Claimant Google Inc, Defendant Google Inc ; Statement by Google Inc. re: Status Conference, #370 . (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B)(Zeller, Michael)

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

JEFFREY N. MAUSNER (State Bar No. 122385) Warner Center Towers, Suite 910 21800 Oxnard Street Woodland Hills, California 91367-3640 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Plaintiff Perfect 10, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PERFECT 10, INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE INC., a corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive Defendants. _____________________________ AND CONSOLIDATED CASE Date: Time: Place: Courtroom of Judge Hillman Discovery Cut-Off Date: None set Pretrial Conference Date: None set Trial Date: None set
Case No. CV 04-9484 AHM (SHx) [Consolidated with Case No. CV 05-4753 AHM (SHx)]

DISCOVERY MOTION DECLARATION OF VALERIE KINCAID IN SUPPORT OF PERFECT 10'S PORTIONS OF THE JOINT STIPULATION RE GOOGLE INC.'S MOTION TO DETERMINE THE SUFFICIENCY OF PERFECT 10 INC.'S RESPONSES TO GOOGLE'S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SETS 1 AND 2

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

DECLARATION OF VALERIE KINCAID I, Valerie Kincaid, declare as follows: 1. I am a member of the State Bar of California and admitted to practice before this Court. I am an attorney for the Law Offices of Jeffrey Mausner, which is counsel for Plaintiff Perfect 10, Inc. ("Perfect 10") in this action. All of the matters stated herein are of my own personal knowledge, except where otherwise stated, and if called as a witness, I could and would testify competently thereto. I make this declaration in support of Perfect 10's portions of the Joint Stipulation re Google Inc.'s Motion to Determine the Sufficiency of Perfect 10 Inc.'s Responses to Google's Requests for Admission, Sets 1 and 2. 2. Google served the first set of requests for admissions on April 3, 2008, and Perfect 10 served its responses on May 5, 2008. Google sent its meet and confer letter regarding the first request on May 23, 2008, and did no follow-up at all until August 8, 2008. August 8 is the day that Google finally, after seven months of delay, served amended responses to its own responses to Perfect 10's requests for admissions. Counsel met and conferred telephonically on October 13, 2008, and at the meet and confer, Google's counsel only asked me to specify the requests Perfect 10 would amend. I stated that Perfect 10 would amend various responses but could not identify each one at that time. On Thursday October 16, 2008, I said, in writing, that I would set forth Perfect 10's position shortly, and then, four days later, on Monday October 20, 2008, Google filed this motion. In an e-mail to Rachel Herrick, dated October 16, 2008, I set forth Perfect 10's position regarding the second set of requests for admissions and then stated that "[w]ith regard to the first set of requests for admissions, we will provide Perfect 10's position shortly." Perfect 10 would have amended certain responses in the first set of requests for admission, but Google filed its motion before Perfect 10 had a chance to do so.

-2-

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

3. Since the October 6, 2008 hearing, Google has sent Perfect 10 numerous correspondence about discovery matters and has demanded to meet and confer about issues it never raised prior to October 6, 2008 or had long forgotten. Since the October 6, 2008 hearing, Google sent counsel for Perfect 10 at least 40 letters and e-mails regarding discovery issues. 4. In addition, since the October 6, 2008 hearing, Perfect 10's counsel has been inundated with work. Inter alia, Perfect 10 (1) filed a summary judgment motion against Alexa.com; (2) filed the supplemental briefing, revised statement of genuine issues, declarations, and exhibits regarding the A9.com summary judgment motion, as ordered by the Court; (3) filed supplemental briefing in the Amazon action regarding the protective order sought by Amazon; (4) personally met with Andrew Bridges for a full day regarding the Court's discovery plan, as ordered by the Court; (5) served responses to Alexa's first set of interrogatories; (6) served responses to Alexa's first set of document requests and produced documents pursuant to it; (7) attended the hearing on the A9.com summary judgment motion. That's just in these cases; there are other matters, including personal matters, that Perfect 10's counsel has to attend to. Perfect 10's counsel informed Google's counsel that they were extremely busy and could not immediately respond to its every growing list of discovery immediately. That just brought on an even greater onslaught of e-mails and letters demanding discovery, most of which has nothing to do with the important issues in the case. 5. At the beginning of January 2008, Perfect 10 initiated the meet and confer process regarding Google's responses to requests for admissions. Seven months later, Google finally served amended responses. On May 8, 2008 (four months after Perfect 10 initiated the meet and confer process), Google's counsel, Rachel Herrick, asked me to not follow-up regarding how much time Google was taking to amend its responses to Perfect 10's requests for admissions, and Perfect 10 never followed-up again.
-3-

EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT B

EXHIBIT C

EXHIBIT D