Perfect 10 Inc v. Google Inc et al

Filing 607

RESPONSE IN SUPPORT of EX PARTE APPLICATION to Compel re: Perfect 10, Inc.: Defendant Google Inc.'s Joinder in Defendants Amazon.com, Inc. and Alexa Internet's Ex Parte Application for an Order Compelling Perfect 10, Inc. to Affix Production Numbers to its Product #596 , 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 Reply to Perfect 10, Inc.'s Response Regarding Diane Price filed by Counter Claimant Google Inc, Defendant Google Inc. (Herrick, Rachel)

Perfect 10 Inc v. Google Inc et al

Doc. 607

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 Herrick 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)] DISCOVERY MATTER GOOGLE INC.'S REPLY TO PERFECT 10, INC.'S RESPONSE REGARDING DIANE PRICE 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
01980.51320/3205523.1

Defendants.

GOOGLE'S REPLY TO PERFECT 10'S RESPONSE REGARDING DIANE PRICE
Dockets.Justia.com

1

In response to Google's demonstration that it is feasible for Perfect 10 to

2 employ Adobe Acrobat Professional to Bates number its electronic document 3 productions (Docket Nos. 543-44), and Perfect 10's insistence that it is 4 technologically impossible to do so (Docket Nos. 547-50), the Court requested that 5 the parties identify a neutral consultant to advise it on those feasibility issues. 6 Google Inc. proposed Diane Price of Traveling Coaches, Inc. See Docket No. 604. 7 Perfect 10 states it has "no objection" to retaining Ms. Price for this purpose. See 8 Docket No. 606. That is all the Court requested, and Perfect 10's Response should 9 have ended there. 10 Unfortunately, Perfect 10 proceeded to add yet another round of irrelevant 11 argument that should be disregarded.1 The sole purpose of retaining Ms. Price is to 12 advise the Court regarding whether Perfect 10 can use the Bates stamping feature of 13 the Adobe program--the program Perfect 10 selected to prepare its document 14 productions--to Bates-number those hard drive productions. The Court did not ask 15 the parties to locate a vendor the parties could pay to do Perfect 10's work for it. If 16 it is feasible to use Adobe for this purpose, then it will be Perfect 10's responsibility 17 to do so (as it is for all litigants)--not Defendants.' Perfect 10 has no less than four 18 attorneys, three legal assistants and a professional computer programmer working 19 for it in this case, as well as Dr. Zada. When it suits its own purposes, Perfect 10 20 has represented to the Court that its personnel (including Ms. Poblete, Ms. Chou, 21 Mr. Chumura and Dr. Zada)2 have technical expertise (even assuming that using 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
01980.51320/3205523.1

Perfect 10's claim that Google's motion is an "abusive litigation tactic" is meritless. There is nothing tactical (let alone abusive) about asking a party to follow standard litigation practices by Bates-numbering its own document productions. 2 See, e.g., Decl. of Norman Zada in Supp. of Perfect 10's Mot. for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 438) ("I have programmed computers for at least twenty years"); Decl. of Sean Chumura in Opp. to Google's Mot. for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 479) at ¶ 1 ("I am a professional programmer with over 15 years of (footnote continued)
GOOGLE'S REPLY TO PERFECT 10'S RESPONSE REGARDING DIANE PRICE

1

-1-

1 Adobe requires such expertise).3 Perfect 10's current protestation that Mr. Mausner 2 personally does not have that expertise is irrelevant. 3 The only issue here is whether Perfect 10 has a legitimate objection to 4 retaining Ms. Price to answer the Court's questions regarding the capabilities of the 5 Adobe program. Perfect 10 does not, and that should be the end of the matter. 6 DATED: November 17, 2009 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
01980.51320/3205523.1

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

experience [and] have testified as an expert in court proceedings in the field of Computer Forensics."); Decl. of Sheena Chou in Opp. to Google's Mot. for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 483) at ¶ 2 ("I ... am quite familiar with computers and the Internet."). 3 Perfect 10's reference to Quinn Emanuel's litigation support services is yet another irrelevant distraction in Perfect 10's ongoing attempt to foist its litigation work onto Defendants. Quite obviously, Quinn Emanuel offers those services to its clients (for a fee), not to its clients' adversaries (for free). -2-

GOOGLE'S REPLY TO PERFECT 10'S RESPONSE REGARDING DIANE PRICE