Perfect 10 Inc v. Google Inc et al

Filing 604

SUPPLEMENT to MOTION to Compel Perfect 10, Inc. to Produce Documents, Comply with the Protective Order, and Affix Document Control Numbers to its Document Productions #407 Google Inc.'s Second Supplemental Memorandum In Support Of Its Motion To Compel Perfect 10, Inc. To Affix Control Numbers To Its Document Productions filed by Counter Claimant Google Inc, Defendant Google Inc. (Herrick, Rachel)

Download PDF
Perfect 10 Inc v. Google Inc et al Doc. 60 1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART OLIVER & HEDGES, LLP Michael T. Zeller (Bar No. 196417) michaelzeller@quinne manuel.com 2 865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor 3 Los Angeles, California 90017-2543 Telephone: (213) 443-3000 4 Facsimile: (213) 443-3100 Charles K. Verhoeven (Bar No. 170151) charlesverhoeven@quinne manuel.com 5 50 California Street, 22nd Floor 6 San Francisco, California 94111 Rachel Herrick Kassabian (Bar No. 191060) rachelkassabian@quinne manuel.com 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)] DISCOVERY MATTER GOOGLE INC.'S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO COMPEL PERFECT 10, INC. TO AFFIX CONTROL NUMBERS TO ITS DOCUMENT PRODUCTION Hon. Stephen J. Hillman Date: None [Currently under submission] Time: None Crtrm.: 550 Discovery Cutoff: None Set Pretrial Conference Date: 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 01980.51320/3191670.1 Defendants. GOOGLE'S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO COMPEL PERFECT 10 TO AFFIX CONTROL NUMBERS TO ITS DOCUMENT PRODUCTION Dockets.Justia.com 1 Pursuant to the Court's request during the November 3, 2009 telephonic 2 conference, Google Inc. has located the following consultant to advise the Court on 3 the feasibility of whether Perfect 10 can employ Adobe Acrobat Professional to 4 Bates number its electronic document productions: 5 6 7 8 9 Diane Price Application Specialist at Traveling Coaches, Inc. 1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 2750, Dallas, TX 75201 http://www.travelingcoaches.com/ 800-493-4083 10 Google located Ms. Price through a referral from Adobe, Inc. Ms. Price has 11 informed Google that she has extensive experience managing document production 12 projects with Adobe Acrobat Professional (as well as other litigation support 13 software), and is available to take on this project. Ms. Price estimated that if sent a 14 hard drive, she could do an initial assessment regarding the feasibility of using 15 Adobe Acrobat Professional's bates stamping feature to affix control numbers to the 16 files on that hard drive in approximately four hours. Her hourly rate is $145. 17 Defendants Amazon.com, Inc., Alexa Internet, and A9.com have stipulated to 18 using Ms. Price as a court-appointed neutral expert, and further advise that if Ms. 19 Price is unable to answer the Court's questions to the Court's satisfaction, the Court 20 would be free to seek other opinions. Perfect 10 has spoken with Ms. Price by 21 phone and has raised no objection to Ms. Price's qualifications and expertise to 22 advise the Court regarding Adobe Professional software. 23 DATED: November 11, 2009 24 25 26 27 28 01980.51320/3191670.1 Respectfully submitted, QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART OLIVER & HEDGES, LLP By Rachel Herrick Kassabian Attorneys for Defendant GOOGLE INC. -1- GOOGLE'S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO COMPEL PERFECT 10 TO AFFIX CONTROL NUMBERS TO ITS DOCUMENT PRODUCTION

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?