Perfect 10 Inc v. Google Inc et al

Filing 590

REQUEST to Clarify re: the Court's October 6, 2009 Order Granting in Part Google Inc.'s Motion to Compel Perfect 10 to Produce Complete and Unredacted Financial Documents and Other Damages-Related Documents, and Amazon.com and Alexa Internet's Joinder Therein filed by Defendant and Counterclaimant Google Inc. (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Thomas Nolan in Support Thereof, and Exhibit A Thereto)(Herrick, Rachel)

Perfect 10 Inc v. Google Inc et al

Doc. 590

1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART OLIVER & HEDGES, LLP Michael T. Zeller (Bar No. 196417) [e-mail] 2 865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor 3 Los Angeles, California 90017-2543 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Charles K. Verhoeven (Bar No. 170151) [e-mail] 5 50 California Street, 22nd Floor 6 San Francisco, California 94111 Rachel H. Kassabian (Bar No. 191060) [e-mail] 7 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 560 8 Redwood Shores, California 94065 9 Attorneys for Defendant GOOGLE INC. 10 11 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CASE NO. CV 04-9484 AHM (SHx) [Consolidated with Case No. CV 054753 AHM (SHx)] GOOGLE INC.'S REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION RE: THE COURT'S OCTOBER 6, 2009 ORDER COMPELLING PERFECT 10 TO PRODUCE COMPLETE AND UNREDACTED FINANCIAL DOCUMENTS AND OTHER DAMAGES-RELATED DOCUMENTS, AND AMAZON.COM AND ALEXA INTERNET'S JOINDER THEREIN [Declaration of Thomas Nolan filed concurrently herewith] Hon. Stephen J. Hillman Date: None Time: None Place: Courtroom 550 Discovery Cut-off: None Set Pre-trial Conference: None Set Trial Date: None Set

13 PERFECT 10, INC., a California corporation, 14 Plaintiff, 15 vs. 16 GOOGLE INC., a corporation; and 17 DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, 18 19 20 22 23 vs. Defendants. AND COUNTERCLAIM

PERFECT 10, INC., a California 21 corporation, Plaintiff,

24 AMAZON.COM, INC., a corporation; A9.COM, INC., a corporation; and 25 DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, 26 27 28 Defendants.

GOOGLE INC.'S REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION
Dockets.Justia.com

1 2

Request for Clarification Google hereby submits the following request for clarification regarding the

3 meaning and implications of Paragraph 2 of the Court's October 6, 2009 Order 4 Granting in Part Google Inc.'s Motion to Compel Perfect 10 to Produce Complete 5 and Unredacted Financial Documents and Other Damages-Related Documents, and 6 Amazon.com and Alexa Internet's Joinder Therein (the "Order"). 7 At the September 22, 2009 hearing on Google's Motion to compel Perfect 10 8 to produce certain financial records in unredacted form (the "Motion"), the Court 9 issued an order from the bench compelling Perfect 10 to produce its financial 10 statements and tax returns in complete and unredacted form, with three narrow 11 exceptions pertaining to (1) credit card numbers, and (2) the names of patients and 12 (3) treating physicians in entries for medical expenses. Counsel for the Amazon 13 Defendants confirmed this order at the hearing as follows: 14 15 16 17 18 19 MR. JANSEN: AS I UNDERSTAND THE COURT'S ORDER, IS IT, EVERYTHING IS UNREDACTED EXCEPT VERY -- THREE VERY LIMITED THINGS, WHICH ARE THE CREDIT CARD NUMBERS, THE NAMES OF PATIENTS, AND THE NAMES OF DOCTORS. EVERYTHING ELSE IS UNREDACTED. THE COURT: I THINK YOU'RE CORRECT.

20 Declaration of Thomas Nolan (filed concurrently herewith), at Exhibit A 21 (September 22, 2009 Hearing Transcript at 59:12-17). 22 Following that hearing, the parties submitted (Proposed) Orders confirming 23 the Court's oral rulings. The Court adopted Perfect 10's version of Paragraph 2 24 (addressing production of settlement information). This Paragraph provides (inter 25 alia) that "Perfect 10 may not redact information regarding the date, payor, and 26 amount of any such settlement payments," and that "Perfect 10 is not required to 27 produce any information about any settlements with third parties, other than the 28
GOOGLE INC.'S REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION

-1-

1 date, payor, and amount of any such settlement payments, and may redact settlement 2 information it is not required to produce." 3 Google understands this Paragraph to require Perfect 10 to produce its 4 financial reports and tax returns with the date, payor, and settlement amount of any 5 settlement payments received unredacted, and to permit Perfect 10 to redact other 6 settlement information that might be reflected on the face of the financial reports 7 and tax returns (if any). Particularly because the relevant portion of Google's 8 Motion pertained only to removing the redactions on Perfect 10's financial reports 9 and tax returns, Google does not understand the Order to suggest that the Court has 10 ruled that Perfect 10 need not produce settlement information in any other context, 11 or as reflected in any other documents. 12 Perfect 10 has advised that it disagrees with Google's interpretation of the 13 Order in this respect, and further, that it reads the Order as relieving Perfect 10 from 14 any obligation to produce any other documents that might contain settlement 15 information. Stated another way, Perfect 10 construes this aspect of the Court's 16 order granting Google's motion to compel unredacted financial records as a 17 protective order in favor of Perfect 10, relieving Perfect 10 from its production 18 obligations regarding discovery requests that were not even before the Court on 19 Google's Motion. Of course, Perfect 10 has not filed a motion for protective order 20 relieving it from the obligation to produce documents containing settlement 21 information (such as settlement agreements), nor have the parties briefed that issue, 22 nor does Google believe that the Court has issued such a protective order. 23 Accordingly, Google respectfully requests that the Court confirm that (1) 24 Paragraph 2 of the October 6, 2009 Order is limited only to the issue of what 25 redactions Perfect 10 was ordered to remove from its financial records and tax 26 returns, and (2) the Court has made no ruling (including in Paragraph 2 of this 27 Order) granting Perfect 10 a protective order relieving it from the obligation to 28 produce any other documents that may include settlement information.
GOOGLE INC.'S REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION

-2-

1 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

Respectfully Submitted, QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART OLIVER & HEDGES, LLP By Rachel Herrick Kassabian Attorneys for Defendant GOOGLE INC.

2 DATED: October 21, 2009

GOOGLE INC.'S REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION

-3-