Perfect 10 Inc v. Google Inc et al

Filing 867

DECLARATION of Jeffrey N. Mausner In Opposition to Defendant Google Inc.'s Motion for a Protective Order Regarding Perfect 10's Deposition Notice Directed to Dr. Eric Schmidt [Exhibits L, M and N Filed Separately Under Seal Pursuant to Protective Order]; re MOTION for Protective Order for relief from P10's Deposition Notice Directed to Dr. Eric Schmidt #866 filed by Plaintiff Perfect 10 Inc. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A-D, #2 Exhibit E-H, #3 Exhibit I, #4 Exhibit J, #5 Exhibit K-R)(Mausner, Jeffrey)

Exhibit K

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 94065-2139 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)] DEFENDANT GOOGLE INC.'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF PERFECT 10, INC.'S TENTH SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

PERFECT 10, INC., a California 13 corporation, 14 15 vs. Plaintiff,

16 GOOGLE INC., a corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, 17 Defendants. 18 19 AND COUNTERCLAIM 20 PERFECT 10, INC., a California corporation, 21 Plaintiff, 22 vs. 23 AMAZON.COM, INC., a corporation; 24 A9.COM, INC., a corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, 25 Defendants. 26 27
01980.51320/3103507.5

28

Case No. CV 04-9484 AHM (SHx) [Consolidated with Case No. CV 05-4753 AHM (SHx) DEFENDANTS GOOGLE INC.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF PERFECT 10 INC.'S DOCUMENT REQUESTS

1 PROPOUNDING PARTY: 2 RESPONDING PARTY: 3 SET NUMBER: 4

PLAINTIFF PERFECT 10, INC. DEFENDANT GOOGLE INC. TEN

Pursuant to Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant

5 Google Inc. ("Google") hereby responds and objects to the Tenth Set of Requests 6 for Production of Documents from Plaintiff Perfect 10, Inc. ("Perfect 10") ("Perfect 7 10's Tenth Set of Document Requests"), as follows: 8 9 GENERAL OBJECTIONS The following general objections apply to each and every request set forth in

10 Perfect 10's Tenth Set of Document Requests, and are expressly incorporated by 11 reference into each of the following responses as if fully set forth therein. 12 1. Google objects to the definitions and instructions provided with the

13 Plaintiff's Requests and to each Request on the grounds that they seek the 14 production of documents protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, 15 work product doctrine, or any other evidentiary privilege. Such information will not 16 be provided in response to the Requests, and any inadvertent disclosure thereof shall 17 not be deemed a waiver of any privilege with respect to such information or of any 18 work product doctrine that may attach thereto. 19 2. Google objects generally to the definitions and instructions provided

20 with Plaintiffs' Requests on the grounds that those definitions seek to impose 21 obligations and demands on Google greater than those imposed by the Federal Rules 22 of Civil Procedure. 23 3. Google objects to the definitions of "GOOGLE," "YOU" and "YOUR"

24 on the grounds that they are overbroad, unduly burdensome and purport to place 25 discovery obligations upon Google that exceed those required by the Federal Rules 26 of Civil Procedure. Google submits these responses on its own behalf and does not 27 speak for other entities or persons. Google will produce only those documents
01980.51320/3103507.3

28 within Google's possession, custody or control. -2-

Case No. CV 04-9484 AHM (SHx) [Consolidated with Case No. CV 05-4753 AHM (SHx) DEFENDANTS GOOGLE INC.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF PERFECT 10, INC.'S DOCUMENT REQUESTS

1

4.

Google objects to the definition of "DOCUMENT" and

2 "DOCUMENTS" on the grounds that they exceed the limitations of Federal Rule of 3 Civil Procedure 34. Google further objects to the definition of "DOCUMENT" and 4 "DOCUMENTS" as unintelligible, vague and ambiguous, especially with respect to 5 Perfect 10's references to a "third party webmaster or website." 6 5. Google objects to the definition of "IDENTIFY" on the grounds that

7 Perfect 10 seeks to use that definition to require Google to "give" or "provide" 8 information separate from the documents that Perfect 10 has requested in its 9 document requests. 10 6. Google objects to the definition of "RELATE TO" and "RELATING

11 TO" as vague and ambiguous, particularly on the grounds that the definition 12 includes "contradict." 13 7. Google objects to the Requests on the grounds that they are overbroad,

14 unduly burdensome, oppressive, cumulative, redundant and harassing. 15 8. Google objects to the Requests on the grounds that they seek

16 information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery 17 of admissible evidence. 18 9. Google objects to the Requests on the grounds that they seek

19 documents not within Google's possession, custody or control. An objection on this 20 ground does not constitute a representation or admission that such information 21 and/or documents do in fact exist. 22 10. Google objects to each Request on the grounds that it is vague,

23 ambiguous or unintelligible. 24 11. Google objects to each Request on the grounds and to the extent it may

25 require the production of private and confidential information of non-parties whose 26 privacy is protected by the United States Constitution; the California Constitution, 27 Art. 1, Sec. 1 (and/or all other state constitutions); and all other applicable federal
01980.51320/3103507.3

28 and state privacy laws. Google is not authorized to and cannot waive third parties' Case No. CV 04-9484 AHM (SHx) [Consolidated -3with Case No. CV 05-4753 AHM (SHx) DEFENDANTS GOOGLE INC.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF PERFECT 10, INC.'S DOCUMENT REQUESTS

1 statutory and constitutional privacy rights and will not produce any documents 2 implicating such rights. 3 12. Google objects to the Requests on the grounds that they require

4 production of confidential, proprietary, or trade secret business information of 5 Google or a non-party. Google will only produce such documents pursuant to the 6 parties' stipulated protective order and expressly reserves the right to seek any 7 further relief it deems necessary. 8 13. Google objects to the Requests on the grounds that they seek

9 documents that are equally available to Perfect 10 because they are currently in 10 Perfect 10's possession, under Perfect 10's control or in the possession or control of 11 the Plaintiff's attorney or agents. 12 14. Any objection by Google does not constitute a representation or

13 admission that such information and/or documents do in fact exist or are known to 14 Google. 15 15. Google objects generally to Requests that call for extensive electronic

16 production as overly broad, unduly burdensome and oppressive. Google further 17 objects to each Request on the grounds that and to the extent it seeks inaccessible 18 electronically-stored information, which information is presumptively non19 discoverable under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2). Additionally, where appropriate, 20 Google reserves the right to seek cost-shifting for expenses associated with 21 production of costly or inaccessible electronically-stored information. 22 16. Google objects to the Requests on the grounds that they are duplicative

23 of prior document requests and seek documents previously produced by Google. 24 Such documents will not be re-produced. 25 17. Google has made a reasonable investigation for documents responsive

26 to Perfect 10's Requests. Google is still pursuing an investigation and analysis of 27 the facts and law pertaining to this action and has not yet completed the
01980.51320/3103507.3

28 investigation. Thus, these responses are made without prejudice to Google's right Case No. CV 04-9484 AHM (SHx) [Consolidated -4with Case No. CV 05-4753 AHM (SHx) DEFENDANTS GOOGLE INC.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF PERFECT 10, INC.'S DOCUMENT REQUESTS

1 subsequently to supplement, modify or otherwise change or amend these responses. 2 The information contained in these responses is also subject to correction for 3 omissions or errors. 4 5 6 7 DOCUMENT REQUEST 342: 8 DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY the owner of each of the websites 9 listed in Exhibit 1. 10 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST 342: 11 Google objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information outside 12 the scope of permissible discovery, not relevant to the subject matter of the action, 13 and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 14 Google further objects to this request as overbroad, oppressive, and unduly 15 burdensome, especially in that it calls for inaccessible electronically-stored 16 information. Google further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks 17 documents not within Google's possession, custody or control. Google further 18 objects to the request on the grounds that it calls for the disclosure of documents 19 protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine and/or other 20 applicable privileges. Such documents will not be produced. Google further objects 21 to this request as vague, ambiguous and unintelligible, including without limitation 22 with respect to the terms "IDENTIFY," "owner" and "websites." Subject to and 23 without waiving the specific and General Objections above, Google responds that it 24 will produce documents sufficient to show that Google hosts web pages that bear the 25 suffix "blogspot.com" or "blogger.com." 26 DOCUMENT REQUEST 343: 27
01980.51320/3103507.3

RESPONSES TO INDIVIDUAL REQUESTS

DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY the webmaster of each of the
Case No. CV 04-9484 AHM (SHx) [Consolidated with Case No. CV 05-4753 AHM (SHx) DEFENDANTS GOOGLE INC.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF PERFECT 10, INC.'S DOCUMENT REQUESTS

28 websites listed in Exhibit 1. -5-

1 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST 343: 2 Google objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information outside 3 the scope of permissible discovery, not relevant to the subject matter of the action, 4 and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 5 Google further objects to this request as overbroad, oppressive, and unduly 6 burdensome, especially in that it calls for inaccessible electronically-stored 7 information. Google further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks 8 documents not within Google's possession, custody or control. Google further 9 objects to the request on the grounds that it calls for the disclosure of documents 10 protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine and/or other 11 applicable privileges. Such documents will not be produced. Google further objects 12 to this request as vague, ambiguous and unintelligible, including without limitation 13 with respect to the terms "IDENTIFY," "webmaster" and "websites." 14 DOCUMENT REQUEST 344: 15 DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY the contact person for each of the 16 websites listed in Exhibit 1. 17 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST 344: 18 Google objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information outside 19 the scope of permissible discovery, not relevant to the subject matter of the action, 20 and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 21 Google further objects to this request as overbroad, oppressive, and unduly 22 burdensome, especially in that it calls for inaccessible electronically-stored 23 information. Google further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks 24 documents not within Google's possession, custody or control. Google further 25 objects to the request on the grounds that it calls for the disclosure of documents 26 protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine and/or other 27 applicable privileges. Such documents will not be produced. Google further objects 28
01980.51320/3103507.3

Case No. CV 04-9484 AHM (SHx) [Consolidated with Case No. CV 05-4753 AHM (SHx) DEFENDANTS GOOGLE INC.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF PERFECT 10, INC.'S DOCUMENT REQUESTS

-6-

1 to this request as vague, ambiguous and unintelligible, including without limitation 2 with respect to the terms "IDENTIFY," "contact person" and "websites." 3 DOCUMENT REQUEST 345: 4 DOCUMENTS sufficient to determine which of the websites listed in Exhibit 5 1 are or ever were AdSense websites, and the time periods that they were AdSense 6 websites. 7 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST 345: 8 Google objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information outside 9 the scope of permissible discovery, not relevant to the subject matter of the action, 10 and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 11 Google further objects to the request as at least partially duplicative of previous 12 Document Requests, including Request Nos. 302, 314, and 323-325. Google further 13 objects to this request as overbroad, oppressive, and unduly burdensome, especially 14 in that it calls for inaccessible electronically-stored information. Google further 15 objects to the request on the grounds that it calls for the disclosure of documents 16 protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine and/or other 17 applicable privileges. Such documents will not be produced. Google further objects 18 to this request as vague, ambiguous and unintelligible, including without limitation 19 with respect to the terms "websites" and "AdSense websites." 20 DOCUMENT REQUEST 346: 21 DOCUMENTS sufficient to determine which of the websites listed in Exhibit 22 1 have ever displayed Ads by Google, and the time periods that they did so. 23 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST 346: 24 Google objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information outside 25 the scope of permissible discovery, not relevant to the subject matter of the action, 26 and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 27 Google further objects to the request as at least partially duplicative of previous
01980.51320/3103507.3

28 Document Requests, including Request Nos. 302, 314, and 323-325. Google further Case No. CV 04-9484 AHM (SHx) [Consolidated -7with Case No. CV 05-4753 AHM (SHx) DEFENDANTS GOOGLE INC.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF PERFECT 10, INC.'S DOCUMENT REQUESTS

1 objects to this request as overbroad, oppressive, and unduly burdensome, especially 2 in that it calls for inaccessible electronically-stored information. Google further 3 objects to the request on the grounds that it calls for the disclosure of documents 4 protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine and/or other 5 applicable privileges. Such documents will not be produced. Google further objects 6 to this request as vague and ambiguous, including without limitation with respect to 7 the terms "websites," "displayed" and "Ads by Google." 8 DOCUMENT REQUEST 347: 9 DOCUMENTS sufficient to determine which of the websites listed in Exhibit 10 1 are or ever were hosted by GOOGLE, and the time periods that they were hosted 11 by GOOGLE. 12 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST 347: 13 Google objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information outside 14 the scope of permissible discovery, not relevant to the subject matter of the action, 15 and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 16 Google further objects to this request as overbroad, oppressive, and unduly 17 burdensome, especially in that it calls for inaccessible electronically-stored 18 information. Google further objects to the request on the grounds that it calls for the 19 disclosure of documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product 20 doctrine and/or other applicable privileges. Such documents will not be produced. 21 Google further objects to this request as vague and ambiguous, including without 22 limitation with respect to the terms "websites" and "hosted." Subject to and without 23 waiving the specific and General Objections above, Google responds that it will 24 produce documents sufficient to show that Google hosts web pages that bear the 25 suffix "blogspot.com" or "blogger.com." 26 DOCUMENT REQUEST 348: 27
01980.51320/3103507.3

DOCUMENTS sufficient to determine all payments that have been made by

28 GOOGLE to the owners of the websites listed in Exhibit 1. Case No. CV 04-9484 AHM (SHx) [Consolidated -8with Case No. CV 05-4753 AHM (SHx) DEFENDANTS GOOGLE INC.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF PERFECT 10, INC.'S DOCUMENT REQUESTS

1 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST 348: 2 Google objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information outside 3 the scope of permissible discovery, not relevant to the subject matter of the action, 4 and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 5 Google further objects to the request as at least partially duplicative of previous 6 Document Requests, including Request Nos. 302 and 323-325. Google further 7 objects to this request as overbroad, oppressive, and unduly burdensome, especially 8 in that it calls for inaccessible electronically-stored information. Google further 9 objects to the request on the grounds that it calls for the disclosure of documents 10 protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine and/or other 11 applicable privileges. Such documents will not be produced. Google further objects 12 to this request as vague, ambiguous and unintelligible, including without limitation 13 with respect to the terms "owners" and "websites." Subject to and without waiving 14 the specific and General Objections above, Google responds that it will produce 15 documents sufficient to show payments made by Google to any AdSense account 16 holders (following Google's provision of notice to those account holders) for which 17 Google investigated and verified a claim of copyright infringement made by Perfect 18 10. 19 DOCUMENT REQUEST 349: 20 All DOCUMENTS showing payments made by GOOGLE to the owners of 21 the websites listed in Exhibit 1. 22 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST 349: 23 Google objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information outside 24 the scope of permissible discovery, not relevant to the subject matter of the action, 25 and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 26 Google further objects to the request as at least partially duplicative of previous 27 Document Requests, including Request Nos. 302 and 323-325. Google further
01980.51320/3103507.3

28 objects to this request as overbroad, oppressive, and unduly burdensome, especially Case No. CV 04-9484 AHM (SHx) [Consolidated -9with Case No. CV 05-4753 AHM (SHx) DEFENDANTS GOOGLE INC.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF PERFECT 10, INC.'S DOCUMENT REQUESTS

1 in that it calls for inaccessible electronically-stored information. Google further 2 objects to the request on the grounds that it calls for the disclosure of documents 3 protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine and/or other 4 applicable privileges. Such documents will not be produced. Google further objects 5 to this request as vague, ambiguous and unintelligible, including without limitation 6 with respect to the terms "owners" and "websites." Subject to and without waiving 7 the specific and General Objections above, Google responds that it will produce 8 documents sufficient to show payments made by Google to any AdSense account 9 holders (following Google's provision of notice to those account holders) for which 10 Google investigated and verified a claim of copyright infringement made by Perfect 11 10. 12 DOCUMENT REQUEST 350: 13 DOCUMENTS sufficient to determine all payments that have been made by 14 the owners of the websites listed in Exhibit 1 to GOOGLE. 15 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST 350: 16 Google objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information outside 17 the scope of permissible discovery, not relevant to the subject matter of the action, 18 and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 19 Google further objects to this request as overbroad, oppressive, and unduly 20 burdensome, especially in that it calls for inaccessible electronically-stored 21 information. Google further objects to the request on the grounds that it calls for the 22 disclosure of documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product 23 doctrine and/or other applicable privileges. Such documents will not be produced. 24 Google further objects to this request as vague, ambiguous and unintelligible, 25 including without limitation with respect to the terms "owners" and "websites." 26 DOCUMENT REQUEST 351: 27
01980.51320/3103507.3

All DOCUMENTS showing payments made by the owners of the websites
Case No. CV 04-9484 AHM (SHx) [Consolidated with Case No. CV 05-4753 AHM (SHx) DEFENDANTS GOOGLE INC.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF PERFECT 10, INC.'S DOCUMENT REQUESTS

28 listed in Exhibit 1 to GOOGLE. -10-

1 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST 351: 2 Google objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information outside 3 the scope of permissible discovery, not relevant to the subject matter of the action, 4 and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 5 Google further objects to this request as overbroad, oppressive, and unduly 6 burdensome, especially in that it calls for inaccessible electronically-stored 7 information. Google further objects to the request on the grounds that it calls for the 8 disclosure of documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product 9 doctrine and/or other applicable privileges. Such documents will not be produced. 10 Google further objects to this request as vague, ambiguous and unintelligible, 11 including without limitation with respect to the terms "owners" and "websites." 12 DOCUMENT REQUEST 352: 13 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the websites listed in Exhibit 1. 14 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST 352: 15 Google objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information outside 16 the scope of permissible discovery, not relevant to the subject matter of the action, 17 and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 18 Google further objects to the request as at least partially duplicative of previous 19 Document Requests, including Request Nos. 302, 314 and 323-325. Google further 20 objects to this request as overbroad, oppressive, and unduly burdensome. Google 21 further objects to the request on the grounds that it calls for the disclosure of 22 documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine and/or 23 other applicable privileges. Such documents will not be produced. Google further 24 objects to this request as vague, ambiguous and unintelligible, including without 25 limitation with respect to the terms "RELATING TO" and "websites." 26 DOCUMENT REQUEST 353: 27
01980.51320/3103507.3

All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO communications between GOOGLE and

28 any of the owners of the websites listed in Exhibit 1. Case No. CV 04-9484 AHM (SHx) [Consolidated -11with Case No. CV 05-4753 AHM (SHx) DEFENDANTS GOOGLE INC.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF PERFECT 10, INC.'S DOCUMENT REQUESTS

1 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST 353: 2 Google objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information outside 3 the scope of permissible discovery, not relevant to the subject matter of the action, 4 and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 5 Google further objects to the request as at least partially duplicative of previous 6 Document Requests, including Request No. 314. Google further objects to this 7 request as overbroad, oppressive, and unduly burdensome. Google further objects to 8 the request on the grounds that it calls for the disclosure of documents protected by 9 the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine and/or other applicable 10 privileges. Such documents will not be produced. Google further objects to this 11 request as vague, ambiguous and unintelligible, including without limitation with 12 respect to the terms "RELATING TO," "owners" and "websites." Subject to and 13 without waiving the specific and General Objections above, Google responds that it 14 will produce documents sufficient to show (1) communications between Google and 15 any AdSense or Blogger account holder for which Google investigated and verified 16 a claim of copyright infringement made by Perfect 10, and (2) DMCA counter17 notification communications related to claims of copyright infringement made by 18 Perfect 10. 19 DOCUMENT REQUEST 354: 20 All e-mails between GOOGLE and the owners of any of the websites listed in 21 Exhibit 1. 22 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST 354: 23 Google objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information outside 24 the scope of permissible discovery, not relevant to the subject matter of the action, 25 and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 26 Google further objects to the request as at least partially duplicative of previous 27 Document Requests, including Request No. 314. Google further objects to this
01980.51320/3103507.3

28 request as overbroad, oppressive, and unduly burdensome. Google further objects to Case No. CV 04-9484 AHM (SHx) [Consolidated -12with Case No. CV 05-4753 AHM (SHx) DEFENDANTS GOOGLE INC.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF PERFECT 10, INC.'S DOCUMENT REQUESTS

1 the request on the grounds that it calls for the disclosure of documents protected by 2 the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine and/or other applicable 3 privileges. Such documents will not be produced. Google further objects to this 4 request as vague, ambiguous and unintelligible, including without limitation with 5 respect to the terms "owners" and "websites." Subject to and without waiving the 6 specific and General Objections above, Google responds that it will produce 7 documents sufficient to show (1) communications between Google and any 8 AdSense or Blogger account holder for which Google investigated and verified a 9 claim of copyright infringement made by Perfect 10, and (2) DMCA counter10 notification communications related to claims of copyright infringement made by 11 Perfect 10. 12 DOCUMENT REQUEST 355: 13 All e-mails between GOOGLE and the webmasters of any of the websites 14 listed in Exhibit 1. 15 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST 355: 16 Google objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information outside 17 the scope of permissible discovery, not relevant to the subject matter of the action, 18 and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 19 Google further objects to the request as at least partially duplicative of previous 20 Document Requests, including Request No. 314. Google further objects to this 21 request as overbroad, oppressive, and unduly burdensome. Google further objects to 22 the request on the grounds that it calls for the disclosure of documents protected by 23 the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine and/or other applicable 24 privileges. Such documents will not be produced. Google further objects to this 25 request as vague, ambiguous and unintelligible, including without limitation with 26 respect to the terms "webmasters" and "websites." Subject to and without waiving 27 the specific and General Objections above, Google responds that it will produce
01980.51320/3103507.3

28 documents sufficient to show (1) communications between Google and any Case No. CV 04-9484 AHM (SHx) [Consolidated -13with Case No. CV 05-4753 AHM (SHx) DEFENDANTS GOOGLE INC.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF PERFECT 10, INC.'S DOCUMENT REQUESTS

1 AdSense or Blogger account holder for which Google investigated and verified a 2 claim of copyright infringement made by Perfect 10, and (2) DMCA counter3 notification communications related to claims of copyright infringement made by 4 Perfect 10. 5 DOCUMENT REQUEST 356: 6 All e-mails between GOOGLE and the contact persons for any of the 7 websites listed in Exhibit 1. 8 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST 356: 9 Google objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information outside 10 the scope of permissible discovery, not relevant to the subject matter of the action, 11 and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 12 Google further objects to the request as at least partially duplicative of previous 13 Document Requests, including Request No. 314. Google further objects to this 14 request as overbroad, oppressive, and unduly burdensome. Google further objects to 15 the request on the grounds that it calls for the disclosure of documents protected by 16 the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine and/or other applicable 17 privileges. Such documents will not be produced. Google further objects to this 18 request as vague, ambiguous and unintelligible, including without limitation with 19 respect to the terms "contact persons" and "websites." Subject to and without 20 waiving the specific and General Objections above, Google responds that it will 21 produce documents sufficient to show (1) communications between Google and any 22 AdSense or Blogger account holder for which Google investigated and verified a 23 claim of copyright infringement made by Perfect 10, and (2) DMCA counter24 notification communications related to claims of copyright infringement made by 25 Perfect 10. 26 DOCUMENT REQUEST 357: 27
01980.51320/3103507.3

DOCUMENTS sufficient to show the date on which THOMAS NOLAN

28 began working in any capacity whatsoever for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Case No. CV 04-9484 AHM (SHx) [Consolidated -14with Case No. CV 05-4753 AHM (SHx) DEFENDANTS GOOGLE INC.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF PERFECT 10, INC.'S DOCUMENT REQUESTS

1 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST 357: 2 Google objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information outside 3 the scope of permissible discovery, not relevant to the subject matter of the action, 4 and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 5 Google further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks documents not 6 within Google's possession, custody or control. Google further objects to the 7 request on the grounds that it calls for the disclosure of documents protected by the 8 attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine and/or other applicable privileges. 9 Such documents will not be produced. Google further objects to this request on the 10 grounds that it calls for the production of private and confidential employment 11 information of individual non-parties whose privacy is protected by the United 12 States Constitution; the California Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 1 and all other 13 applicable federal and state privacy and employment laws. Google is not authorized 14 to and cannot waive such statutory and constitutional privacy rights and will not 15 produce any documents implicating such rights. Google further objects to the 16 request on the grounds that it seeks confidential information received in the course 17 of judicial employment. Google is not authorized to and cannot waive the 18 protections afforded such privileged and confidential information. Google further 19 objects to this request on the grounds that it is improper, harassing, and not 20 propounded for any legitimate litigation purpose. 21 DOCUMENT REQUEST 358: 22 DOCUMENTS sufficient to show the date on which THOMAS NOLAN 23 stopped working in any capacity whatsoever for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 24 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST 358: 25 Google objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information outside 26 the scope of permissible discovery, not relevant to the subject matter of the action, 27 and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
01980.51320/3103507.3

28 Google further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks documents not Case No. CV 04-9484 AHM (SHx) [Consolidated -15with Case No. CV 05-4753 AHM (SHx) DEFENDANTS GOOGLE INC.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF PERFECT 10, INC.'S DOCUMENT REQUESTS

1 within Google's possession, custody or control. Google further objects to the 2 request on the grounds that it calls for the disclosure of documents protected by the 3 attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine and/or other applicable privileges. 4 Such documents will not be produced. Google further objects to this request on the 5 grounds that it calls for the production of private and confidential employment 6 information of individual non-parties whose privacy is protected by the United 7 States Constitution; the California Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 1 and all other 8 applicable federal and state privacy and employment laws. Google is not authorized 9 to and cannot waive such statutory and constitutional privacy rights and will not 10 produce any documents implicating such rights. Google further objects to the 11 request on the grounds that it seeks confidential information received in the course 12 of judicial employment. Google is not authorized to and cannot waive the 13 protections afforded such privileged and confidential information. Google further 14 objects to this request on the grounds that it is improper, harassing, and not 15 propounded for any legitimate litigation purpose. 16 DOCUMENT REQUEST 359: 17 DOCUMENTS sufficient to show the date on which THOMAS NOLAN first 18 began working in any capacity whatsoever for QUINN EMANUEL. 19 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST 359: 20 Google objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information outside 21 the scope of permissible discovery, not relevant to the subject matter of the action, 22 and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 23 Google further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks documents not 24 within Google's possession, custody or control. Google further objects to the 25 request on the grounds that it calls for the disclosure of documents protected by the 26 attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine and/or other applicable privileges. 27 Such documents will not be produced. Google further objects to this request on the
01980.51320/3103507.3

28 grounds that it calls for the production of private and confidential employment Case No. CV 04-9484 AHM (SHx) [Consolidated -16with Case No. CV 05-4753 AHM (SHx) DEFENDANTS GOOGLE INC.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF PERFECT 10, INC.'S DOCUMENT REQUESTS

1 information of individual non-parties whose privacy is protected by the United 2 States Constitution; the California Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 1 and all other 3 applicable federal and state privacy and employment laws. Google is not authorized 4 to and cannot waive such statutory and constitutional privacy rights and will not 5 produce any documents implicating such rights. Google further objects to this 6 request on the grounds that it is improper, harassing, and not propounded for any 7 legitimate litigation purpose. 8 DOCUMENT REQUEST 360: 9 DOCUMENTS sufficient to show the date on which THOMAS NOLAN was 10 first offered employment to work for QUINN EMANUEL in any capacity 11 whatsoever. 12 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST 360: 13 Google objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information outside 14 the scope of permissible discovery, not relevant to the subject matter of the action, 15 and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 16 Google further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks documents not 17 within Google's possession, custody or control. Google further objects to the 18 request on the grounds that it calls for the disclosure of documents protected by the 19 attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine and/or other applicable privileges. 20 Such documents will not be produced. Google further objects to this request on the 21 grounds that it calls for the production of private and confidential employment 22 information of individual non-parties whose privacy is protected by the United 23 States Constitution; the California Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 1 and all other 24 applicable federal and state privacy and employment laws. Google is not authorized 25 to and cannot waive such statutory and constitutional privacy rights and will not 26 produce any documents implicating such rights. Google further objects to this 27 request on the grounds that it is improper, harassing, and not propounded for any 28 legitimate litigation purpose.
01980.51320/3103507.3

Case No. CV 04-9484 AHM (SHx) [Consolidated with Case No. CV 05-4753 AHM (SHx) DEFENDANTS GOOGLE INC.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF PERFECT 10, INC.'S DOCUMENT REQUESTS

-17-

1 DOCUMENT REQUEST 361: 2 DOCUMENTS sufficient to show the date on which THOMAS NOLAN first 3 accepted employment to work for QUINN EMANUEL in any capacity whatsoever. 4 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST 361: 5 Google objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information outside 6 the scope of permissible discovery, not relevant to the subject matter of the action, 7 and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 8 Google further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks documents not 9 within Google's possession, custody or control. Google further objects to the 10 request on the grounds that it calls for the disclosure of documents protected by the 11 attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine and/or other applicable privileges. 12 Such documents will not be produced. Google further objects to this request on the 13 grounds that it calls for the production of private and confidential employment 14 information of individual non-parties whose privacy is protected by the United 15 States Constitution; the California Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 1 and all other 16 applicable federal and state privacy and employment laws. Google is not authorized 17 to and cannot waive such statutory and constitutional privacy rights and will not 18 produce any documents implicating such rights. Google further objects to this 19 request on the grounds that it is improper, harassing, and not propounded for any 20 legitimate litigation purpose. 21 DOCUMENT REQUEST 362: 22 All DOCUMENTS THOMAS NOLAN provided to QUINN EMANUEL 23 prior to his first day of employment at QUINN EMANUEL. 24 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST 362: 25 Google objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information outside 26 the scope of permissible discovery, not relevant to the subject matter of the action, 27 and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
01980.51320/3103507.3

28 Google further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks documents not Case No. CV 04-9484 AHM (SHx) [Consolidated -18with Case No. CV 05-4753 AHM (SHx) DEFENDANTS GOOGLE INC.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF PERFECT 10, INC.'S DOCUMENT REQUESTS

1 within Google's possession, custody or control. Google further objects to the 2 request on the grounds that it calls for the disclosure of documents protected by the 3 attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine and/or other applicable privileges. 4 Such documents will not be produced. Google further objects to this request on the 5 grounds that it calls for the production of private and confidential employment 6 information of individual non-parties whose privacy is protected by the United 7 States Constitution; the California Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 1 and all other 8 applicable federal and state privacy and employment laws. Google is not authorized 9 to and cannot waive such statutory and constitutional privacy rights and will not 10 produce any documents implicating such rights. Google further objects to this 11 request on the grounds that it is improper, harassing, and not propounded for any 12 legitimate litigation purpose. 13 DOCUMENT REQUEST 363: 14 All DOCUMENTS THOMAS NOLAN provided to QUINN EMANUEL 15 prior to his first day of employment at QUINN EMANUEL concerning any and all 16 aspects of his clerkship for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 17 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST 363: 18 Google objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information outside 19 the scope of permissible discovery, not relevant to the subject matter of the action, 20 and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 21 Google further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks documents not 22 within Google's possession, custody or control. Google further objects to the 23 request on the grounds that it calls for the disclosure of documents protected by the 24 attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine and/or other applicable privileges. 25 Such documents will not be produced. Google further objects to this request on the 26 grounds that it calls for the production of private and confidential employment 27 information of individual non-parties whose privacy is protected by the United
01980.51320/3103507.3

28 States Constitution; the California Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 1 and all other Case No. CV 04-9484 AHM (SHx) [Consolidated -19with Case No. CV 05-4753 AHM (SHx) DEFENDANTS GOOGLE INC.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF PERFECT 10, INC.'S DOCUMENT REQUESTS

1 applicable federal and state privacy and employment laws. Google is not authorized 2 to and cannot waive such statutory and constitutional privacy rights and will not 3 produce any documents implicating such rights. Google further objects to this 4 request on the grounds that it is improper, harassing, and not propounded for any 5 legitimate litigation purpose. 6 DOCUMENT REQUEST 364: 7 All resumes THOMAS NOLAN provided to QUINN EMANUEL prior to his 8 first day of employment at QUINN EMANUEL. 9 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST 364: 10 Google objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information outside 11 the scope of permissible discovery, not relevant to the subject matter of the action, 12 and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 13 Google further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks documents not 14 within Google's possession, custody or control. Google further objects to the 15 request on the grounds that it calls for the disclosure of documents protected by the 16 attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine and/or other applicable privileges. 17 Such documents will not be produced. Google further objects to this request on the 18 grounds that it calls for the production of private and confidential employment 19 information of individual non-parties whose privacy is protected by the United 20 States Constitution; the California Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 1 and all other 21 applicable federal and state privacy and employment laws. Google is not authorized 22 to and cannot waive such statutory and constitutional privacy rights and will not 23 produce any documents implicating such rights. Google further objects to this 24 request on the grounds that it is improper, harassing, and not propounded for any 25 legitimate litigation purpose. 26 DOCUMENT REQUEST 365: 27
01980.51320/3103507.3

All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO whether THOMAS NOLAN could work

28 on any cases involving Perfect 10, Inc., while working at QUINN EMANUEL, Case No. CV 04-9484 AHM (SHx) [Consolidated -20with Case No. CV 05-4753 AHM (SHx) DEFENDANTS GOOGLE INC.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF PERFECT 10, INC.'S DOCUMENT REQUESTS

1 without violating any ethical rules concerning the practice of law, court rules, or any 2 other rules. 3 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST 365: 4 Google objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information outside 5 the scope of permissible discovery, not relevant to the subject matter of the action, 6 and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 7 Google further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks documents not 8 within Google's possession, custody or control. Google further objects to the 9 request on the grounds that it calls for the disclosure of documents protected by the 10 attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine and/or other applicable privileges. 11 Such documents will not be produced. Google further objects to this request as 12 vague, ambiguous and unintelligible, including without limitation with respect to the 13 terms "could," "RELATING TO" and "involving." Google further objects to this 14 request on the grounds that it calls for the production of private and confidential 15 employment information of individual non-parties whose privacy is protected by the 16 United States Constitution; the California Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 1 and all other 17 applicable federal and state privacy and employment laws. Google is not authorized 18 to and cannot waive such statutory and constitutional privacy rights and will not 19 produce any documents implicating such rights. Google further objects to this 20 request on the grounds that it is improper, harassing, and not propounded for any 21 legitimate litigation purpose. 22 DOCUMENT REQUEST 366: 23 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO whether THOMAS NOLAN could work 24 on any cases involving Perfect 10, Inc., while working for the Ninth Circuit Court of 25 Appeals, without violating any ethical rules concerning the practice of law, court 26 rules, or any other rules. 27 28
01980.51320/3103507.3

Case No. CV 04-9484 AHM (SHx) [Consolidated with Case No. CV 05-4753 AHM (SHx) DEFENDANTS GOOGLE INC.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF PERFECT 10, INC.'S DOCUMENT REQUESTS

-21-

1 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST 366: 2 Google objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information outside 3 the scope of permissible discovery, not relevant to the subject matter of the action, 4 and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 5 Google further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks documents not 6 within Google's possession, custody or control. Google further objects to the 7 request on the grounds that it calls for the disclosure of documents protected by the 8 attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine and/or other applicable privileges. 9 Such documents will not be produced. Google further objects to this request as 10 vague, ambiguous and unintelligible, including without limitation with respect to the 11 terms "could," "RELATING TO" and "involving." Google further objects to this 12 request on the grounds that it calls for the production of private and confidential 13 employment information of individual non-parties whose privacy is protected by the 14 United States Constitution; the California Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 1 and all other 15 applicable federal and state privacy and employment laws. Google is not authorized 16 to and cannot waive such statutory and constitutional privacy rights and will not 17 produce any documents implicating such rights. Google further objects to the 18 request on the grounds that it seeks confidential information received in the course 19 of judicial employment. Google is not authorized to and cannot waive the 20 protections afforded such privileged and confidential information. Google further 21 objects to this request on the grounds that it is improper, harassing, and not 22 propounded for any legitimate litigation purpose. 23 DOCUMENT REQUEST 367: 24 DOCUMENTS sufficient to show when QUINN EMANUEL first did any 25 legal work for GOOGLE on any matter involving Perfect 10, Inc. 26 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST 367: 27
01980.51320/3103507.3

Google objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information outside

28 the scope of permissible discovery, not relevant to the subject matter of the action, Case No. CV 04-9484 AHM (SHx) [Consolidated -22with Case No. CV 05-4753 AHM (SHx) DEFENDANTS GOOGLE INC.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF PERFECT 10, INC.'S DOCUMENT REQUESTS

1 and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 2 Google further objects to the request on the grounds that it calls for the disclosure of 3 documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine and/or 4 other applicable privileges. Such documents will not be produced. Google further 5 objects to this request on the grounds that it is improper, harassing, and not 6 propounded for any legitimate litigation purpose. 7 DOCUMENT REQUEST 368: 8 All DOCUMENTS that show any involvement THOMAS NOLAN had in the 9 CCBILL CASE while working for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 10 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST 368: 11 Google objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information outside 12 the scope of permissible discovery, not relevant to the subject matter of the action, 13 and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 14 Google further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks documents not 15 within Google's possession, custody or control. Google further objects to this 16 request as vague, ambiguous and unintelligible, including without limitation with 17 respect to the terms "show" and "involvement." Google further objects to this 18 request on the grounds that it calls for the production of private and confidential 19 employment information of individual non-parties whose privacy is protected by the 20 United States Constitution; the California Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 1 and all other 21 applicable federal and state privacy and employment laws. Google is not authorized 22 to and cannot waive such statutory and constitutional privacy rights and will not 23 produce any documents implicating such rights. Google further objects to the 24 request on the grounds that it seeks confidential information received in the course 25 of judicial employment. Google is not authorized to and cannot waive the 26 protections afforded such privileged and confidential information. Google further 27 objects to this request on the grounds that it is improper, harassing, and not
01980.51320/3103507.3

28 propounded for any legitimate litigation purpose. Google further objects to the Case No. CV 04-9484 AHM (SHx) [Consolidated -23with Case No. CV 05-4753 AHM (SHx) DEFENDANTS GOOGLE INC.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF PERFECT 10, INC.'S DOCUMENT REQUESTS

1 request on the grounds that it calls for the disclosure of documents protected by the 2 attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine and/or other applicable privileges. 3 Such documents will not be produced. 4 DOCUMENT REQUEST 369: 5 All DOCUMENTS that show any involvement THOMAS NOLAN had in the 6 VISA CASE while working for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 7 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST 369: 8 Google objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information outside 9 the scope of permissible discovery, not relevant to the subject matter of the action, 10 and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 11 Google further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks documents not 12 within Google's possession, custody or control. Google further objects to the 13 request on the grounds that it calls for the disclosure of documents protected by the 14 attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine and/or other applicable privileges. 15 Such documents will not be produced. Google further objects to this request as 16 vague, ambiguous and unintelligible, including without limitation with respect to the 17 terms "show" and "involvement." Google further objects to this request on the 18 grounds that it calls for the production of private and confidential employment 19 information of individual non-parties whose privacy is protected by the United 20 States Constitution; the California Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 1 and all other 21 applicable federal and state privacy and employment laws. Google is not authorized 22 to and cannot waive such statutory and constitutional privacy rights and will not 23 produce any documents implicating such rights. Google further objects to the 24 request on the grounds that it seeks confidential information received in the course 25 of judicial employment. Google is not authorized to and cannot waive the 26 protections afforded such privileged and confidential information. Google further 27 objects to this request on the grounds that it is improper, harassing, and not
01980.51320/3103507.3

28 propounded for any legitimate litigation purpose. -24-

Case No. CV 04-9484 AHM (SHx) [Consolidated with Case No. CV 05-4753 AHM (SHx) DEFENDANTS GOOGLE INC.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF PERFECT 10, INC.'S DOCUMENT REQUESTS

1 DOCUMENT REQUEST 370: 2 All DOCUMENTS that show any involvement THOMAS NOLAN had in the 3 PERFECT 10 V. GOOGLE MATTER while working for the Ninth Circuit Court of 4 Appeals. 5 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST 370: 6 Google objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information outside 7 the scope of permissible discovery, not relevant to the subject matter of the action, 8 and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 9 Google further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks documents not 10 within Google's possession, custody or control. Google further objects to the 11 request on the grounds that it calls for the disclosure of documents protected by the 12 attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine and/or other applicable privileges. 13 Such documents will not be produced. Google further objects to this request as 14 vague, ambiguous and unintelligible, including without limitation with respect to the 15 terms "show" and "involvement." Google further objects to this request on the 16 grounds that it calls for the production of private and confidential employment 17 information of individual non-parties whose privacy is protected by the United 18 States Constitution; the California Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 1 and all other 19 applicable federal and state privacy and employment laws. Google is not authorized 20 to and cannot waive such statutory and constitutional privacy rights and will not 21 produce any documents implicating such rights. Google further objects to the 22 request on the grounds that it seeks confidential information received in the course 23 of judicial employment. Google is not authorized to and cannot waive the 24 protections afforded such privileged and confidential information. Google further 25 objects to this request on the grounds that it is improper, harassing, and not 26 propounded for any legitimate litigation purpose. 27 28
01980.51320/3103507.3

Case No. CV 04-9484 AHM (SHx) [Consolidated with Case No. CV 05-4753 AHM (SHx) DEFENDANTS GOOGLE INC.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF PERFECT 10, INC.'S DOCUMENT REQUESTS

-25-

1 DOCUMENT REQUEST 371: 2 All DOCUMENTS that show any steps taken by QUINN EMANUEL 3 RELATING TO possible conflicts or violations of ethical rules, court rules, or any 4 other rules, if THOMAS NOLAN worked on the PERFECT 10 V. GOOGLE 5 MATTER. 6 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST 371: 7 Google objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information outside 8 the scope of permissible discovery, not relevant to the subject matter of the action, 9 and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 10 Google further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks documents not 11 within Google's possession, custody or control. Google further objects to the 12 request on the grounds that it calls for the disclosure of documents protected by the 13 attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine and/or other applicable privileges. 14 Such documents will not be produced. Google further objects to this request as 15 vague, ambiguous and unintelligible, including without limitation with respect to the 16 terms "possible conflicts or violations", "show" and "steps." Google further objects 17 to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of private and 18 confidential employment information of individual non-parties whose privacy is 19 protected by the United States Constitution; the California Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 20 1 and all other applicable federal and state privacy and employment laws. Google is 21 not authorized to and cannot waive such statutory and constitutional privacy rights 22 and will not produce any documents implicating such rights. Google further objects 23 to this request on the grounds that it is improper, harassing, and not propounded for 24 any legitimate litigation purpose. 25 DOCUMENT REQUEST 372: 26 All DOCUMENTS that show information about Perfect 10, Inc. that 27 THOMAS NOLAN obtained prior to his first day of employment at QUINN 28 EMANUEL.
01980.51320/3103507.3

Case No. CV 04-9484 AHM (SHx) [Consolidated with Case No. CV 05-4753 AHM (SHx) DEFENDANTS GOOGLE INC.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF PERFECT 10, INC.'S DOCUMENT REQUESTS

-26-

1 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST 372: 2 Google objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information outside 3 the scope of permissible discovery, not relevant to the subject matter of the action, 4 and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 5 Google further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks documents not 6 within Google's possession, custody or control. Google further objects to the 7 request on the grounds that it calls for the disclosure of documents protected by the 8 attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine and/or other applicable privileges. 9 Such documents will not be produced. Google further objects to this request as 10 vague, ambiguous and unintelligible, including without limitation with respect to the 11 terms "show" and "information." Google further objects to this request on the 12 grounds that it calls for the production of private and confidential employment 13 information of individual non-parties whose privacy is protected by the United 14 States Constitution; the California Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 1 and all other 15 applicable federal and state privacy and employment laws. Google is not authorized 16 to and cannot waive such statutory and constitutional privacy rights and will not 17 produce any documents implicating such rights. Google further objects to the 18 request on the grounds that it seeks confidential information received in the course 19 of judicial employment. Google is not authorized to and cannot waive the 20 protections afforded such privileged and confidential information. Google further 21 objects to this request on the grounds that it is improper, harassing, and not 22 propounded for any legitimate litigation purpose. 23 DOCUMENT REQUEST 373: 24 All DOCUMENTS that show if THOMAS NOLAN disclosed any 25 information about the CCBILL CASE that THOMAS NOLAN learned while 26 clerking for the Ninth Circuit, to any other person at QUINN EMANUEL, any other 27 counsel for GOOGLE, any employee or representative of GOOGLE, or any counsel 28 for Amazon.com.
01980.51320/3103507.3

Case No. CV 04-9484 AHM (SHx) [Consolidated with Case No. CV 05-4753 AHM (SHx) DEFENDANTS GOOGLE INC.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF PERFECT 10, INC.'S DOCUMENT REQUESTS

-27-

1 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST 373: 2 Google objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information outside 3 the scope of permissible discovery, not relevant to the subject matter of the action, 4 and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 5 Google further objects to the request on the grounds that it calls for the disclosure of 6 documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine and/or 7 other applicable privileges. Such documents will not be produced. Google further 8 objects to this request as vague, ambiguous and unintelligible, including without 9 limitation with respect to the terms "show" and "information." Google further 10 objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of private and 11 confidential employment information of individual non-parties whose privacy is 12 protected by the United States Constitution; the California Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 13 1 and all other applicable federal and state privacy and employment laws. Google is 14 not authorized to and cannot waive such statutory and constitutional privacy rights 15 and will not produce any documents implicating such rights. Google further objects 16 to this request on the grounds that it is improper, harassing, and not propounded for 17 any legitimate litigation purpose. 18 DOCUMENT REQUEST 374: 19 All DOCUMENTS that show if THOMAS NOLAN disclosed any 20 information about the VISA CASE that THOMAS NOLAN learned while clerking 21 for the Ninth Circuit, to any other person at QUINN EMANUEL, any other counsel 22 for GOOGLE, any employee or representative of GOOGLE, or any counsel for 23 Amazon.com. 24 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST 374: 25 Google objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information outside 26 the scope of permissible discovery, not relevant to the subject matter of the action, 27 and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
01980.51320/3103507.3

28 Google further objects to the request on the grounds that it calls for the disclosure of Case No. CV 04-9484 AHM (SHx) [Consolidated -28with Case No. CV 05-4753 AHM (SHx) DEFENDANTS GOOGLE INC.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF PERFECT 10, INC.'S DOCUMENT REQUESTS

1 documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine and/or 2 other applicable privileges. Such documents will not be produced. Google further 3 objects to this request as vague, ambiguous and unintelligible, including without 4 limitation with respect to the terms "show" and "information." Google further 5 objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of private and 6 confidential employment information of individual non-parties whose privacy is 7 protected by the United States Constitution; the California Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 8 1 and all other applicable federal and state privacy and employment laws. Google is 9 not authorized to and cannot waive such statutory and constitutional privacy rights 10 and will not produce any documents implicating such rights. Google further objects 11 to this request on the grounds that it is improper, harassing, and not propounded for 12 any legitimate litigation purpose. 13 DOCUMENT REQUEST 375: 14 All DOCUMENTS that show if THOMAS NOLAN disclosed any 15 information about the PERFECT 10 V. GOOGLE MATTER that THOMAS 16 NOLAN learned while clerking for the Ninth Circuit, to any other person at QUINN 17 EMANUEL, any other counsel for GOOGLE, any employee or representative of 18 GOOGLE, or any counsel for Amazon.com. 19 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST 375: 20 Google objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information outside 21 the scope of permissible discovery, not relevant to the subject matter of the action, 22 and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 23 Google further objects to the request on the grounds that it calls for the disclosure of 24 documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine and/or 25 other applicable privileges. Such documents will not be produced. Google further 26 objects to this request as vague, ambiguous and unintelligible, including without 27 limitation with respect to the terms "show" and "information." Google further
01980.51320/3103507.3

28 objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of private and Case No. CV 04-9484 AHM (SHx) [Consolidated -29with Case No. CV 05-4753 AHM (SHx) DEFENDANTS GOOGLE INC.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF PERFECT 10, INC.'S DOCUMENT REQUESTS

1 confidential employment information of individual non-parties whose privacy is 2 protected by the United States Constitution; the California Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 3 1 and all other applicable federal and state privacy and employment laws. Google is 4 not authorized to and cannot waive such statutory and constitutional privacy rights 5 and will not produce any documents implicating such rights. Google further objects 6 to this request on the grounds that it is improper, harassing, and not propounded for 7 any legitimate litigation purpose. 8 DOCUMENT REQUEST 376: 9 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO whether THOMAS NOLAN discussed 10 any of the cases involving Perfect 10 with any of the clerks for the judges who wrote 11 the Court of Appeals opinion in Perfect 10 v. Amazon.com. 12 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST 376: 13 Google objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information outside 14 the scope of permissible discovery, not relevant to the subject matter of the action, 15 and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 16 Google further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks documents not 17 within Google's possession, custody or control. Google further objects to the 18 request on the grounds that it calls for the disclosure of documents protected by the 19 attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine and/or other applicable privileges. 20 Such documents will not be produced. Google further objects to this request as 21 vague, ambiguous and unintelligible, including without limitation with respect to the 22 term "RELATING TO." Google further objects to this request on the grounds that it 23 calls for the production of private and confidential employment information