Perfect 10 Inc v. Google Inc et al

Filing 917

EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for (1 ) Relief from the Ten-Day Requirement of Local Rule 7-3; And (2) a Stay of the Court's June 16, 2010 Order filed by Defendant and Counter-Claimant Google Inc. (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Andrea Pallios Roberts in Support of Google's Ex Parte Application, #2 Proposed Order Granting Google's Ex Parte Application)(Kassabian, Rachel)

Perfect 10 Inc v. Google Inc et al

Doc. 917 Att. 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP Michael T. Zeller Bar o . 196417) mi chaelzel l er@quinnemanue 1. com 865 South Figueroa Street 10th Floor Los Angeles California 9}017-2543 Telephone: [phone] Facslmile :_( 13) 443-3100 Charles KK Verhoeven (Bar No. 170151 } charle sverhoeven@quinnemanuel . com SO California Street, 22nd Floor San Francisco California 94111 Rachel Herrlck Kassabian (Bar No. 191060) rachelkassabian quinnemanuel.com 555 Twin Dolphin rive, 5th Floor Redwood Shores, California 94065

9 Attorneys for Defendant GOGGLE 1NC. 10 11 12 13. PERFECT I0, INC., a California 14 corporation, 15 I6
vs.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CASE NO. CV 04-9484 AHIVi (SHx} DISCOVERY MATTER DECLARATION OF ANDREA PALLIOS ROBERTS IN SUPPORT OF GOGGLE' S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR (l ) RELIEF FROM THE TEN-DAY REQUIREMENT OF LOCAL RULE 7-3; AND (2 A STAY OF THE COURT'S E 1b, 2p10 ORDER

Plaintiff,

17 GOGGLE INC. a corporation; and DOES I througtZ 100 , inclusive, 1$ Defendants. 19 20 AND COUNTERCLAIM 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Hon. Stephen J. Hillman
Date: None Set Time: None Set Crtrm.: 550 Discovery Cutoff: None Set Pretrial Conference Date: None Set Trial Date: None Set

28
01480 .513 2403 8 5 7 770.3

Case No. CV 04-9484 AHM {SHx) DECLARATION OF ANDREA PALLIOS ROBERTS IN SUPPORT OF GOGGLE INC.'S E.YPARTE

APPLICATION TO STAY THE COURT'S JUNE 16, 2010 ORDER

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2

I, Andrea Pallios Roberts, declare as follows: 1. I am a member of the bar of the State of California and an associate at

3 Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, counsel for Defendant Google .Inc. 4 ("Google") in this action. Unless otherwise stated, I make this declaration of my S personal and firsthand knowledge, and if called and sworn as a witness, I could and 6 ^^ would testify competently thereto. 7 2. Shortly after receiving the Court's June 16, 2010 Order denying

8 Plaintiff Perfect 10, Int.'s ("P 10") Motion for Evidentiary and Other Sanctions ("the 9 Order"), Google began working diligently to comply with the alternative relief 10 provided in that Order, including by commencing to gather and review documents 11 for Google's supplemental production, and taking steps to determine how long it 12 will take to search for, review and prepare the entire supplemental document 13 production specified in the Order. ^14 3. Several in-house and outside legal personnel critical to Google's

15 supplemental document production effort had pre-planned vacations scheduled 16 during the week before and/or the week after Independence Day, including the in17 house counsel overseeing this case and the in-house legal assistant overseeing the 18^ document gathering effort. While Google has assigned additional legal personnel to 19 assist with ^ this supplemental production effort, Google will still need substantial 20 additional time to complete it. 21 4. For example, one of the referenced document categories ordered to be

22 supplemented, P10's Requests for Production Nos. 128-131 and 194-195, requires 23 Google to search a massive volume of documents-the entire custodial files of each 24 of the ten custodians named in the requests. Google must then convert and de2S duplicate the documents, manually review them for responsiveness and privilege, 26 and process any responsive documents for electronic production. By way of

27 comparison, Google's prior search for documents responsive to these same requests 28
0 E 980 .51320!3557770,3

Case No. CV 0^1-9^l84 AHM {SHx} DECLARATION OF ANDREA PALLIOS ROBERTS IN SUPPORT OF GOGGLE INC.'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO STAY THE COURT'S JUNE 16.2010 ORDER

1 ^^ in 2008 involved the review of millions of documents {over 400 gigabytes of 2 electronic files, to be precise) and required more than three months to complete. 3 S. This supplemental production will require a similarly burdensome

4 ^^ undertaking. Based on our prior experience with pulling, searching, reviewing and 5 producing documents in the same categories as those specified in the Order 6 II {including the production referenced in paragraph 4 above}, we estimate that it will 7 take approximately six to eight weeks (and possibly longer) for Google to complete S the work necessary to supplement its production as the Court has ordered, even with 9 the assistance of the additional legal staffing Google has assigned to this project.

1a

6.

On Saturday, June 26, 2010, Jeffrey Mausner, counsel of record for

11 P 10, emailed me (and other counsel for Google) to inform Google that P 10 intended 12 to file objections to the Order. Mr. Mausner's email stated that P10 believed the

13 Order was "clearly erroneous," and listed several instances of what P 10 believed 14 were "clearly erroneous findings of fact," The email did not indicate what specific 15 changes to the Order P10 would seek with its objections, but it did list several 16 categories of documents it claims Google was obliged to (but did not) produce, 17 which P10 apparently will request from Judge Matz in its objections. Far example, 181 ^ Mr. Mausner stated that "Perfect 10 was entitled to all [third-party DMCAj notices

191 that were sent to Google."
201 7. I am informed that during the June 28, 2010 telephonic hearing on an

21 ^ unrelated Google discovery motion, P 10 raised an issue referenced but not decided
22 in the Order, namely, whether Google should be required to re-produce in Excel 23 format the DMCA processing spreadsheets Google had already produced to P 10. I 24 am informed that the Court directed the parties to continue to meet and confer 25 regarding this issue, and to bring the issue to the Court's attention if they reached an 26 impasse in those negotiations. Given that certain key Google personnel who must 27 approve any discovery agreements are currently on vacation (as referenced above), 2$
0198D .5 ] 32013557770.3

__ Case No. CV 04-4484 AHM {SHx) DECLARATION OF ANDREA PALLIOS ROBERTS IN SUPPORT OF GOOGLE INC.'S EXP.4R?"E APPLICATION TO STAY THE COURT'S JUNE I6.20I0 ORDER

1 Google anticipates that those negotiations will not conclude until late next week or 2 early the week thereafter. 3 8. On the morning of June 29, 20 i 0, my colleague Rachel Herrick

4 Kassabian emailed Mr. Mausner, requesting that P 10 agree to a stay of the Order's 5 July 6 deadline for Google's supplemental production during the pendency of P 10's 6 objections to the Order. Ms. Kassabian's email explained the various reasons why a 7 stay was necessary and appropriate, including that despite Google's best efforts, it 8 would be physically impossible for Google to meet the current deadline. The parties 9 exchanged several emails, but ultimately, Mr. Mausner refused to agree to Google's 10 requested stay. Instead, Mr. Mausner demanded several substantive concessions 11 including that Google agree to produce several categories of documents that the

12 Order found P10 had not even requested - in exchange fora 24-day extension. Ms. 13 Kassabian informed Mr. Mausner that Google would be filing an ex pate 14 application seeking the necessary stay of the Order, and Mr. Mausner indicated that 15 P10 would oppose it. A true and correct copy of these meet and confer emails is 16 ^ attached hereto as Exhibit A. 17 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of

18 America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed June 30, 2010 at Redwood 19 ^ Shores, California. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
o^asos^szor^sszzzos _^_ Case No. CV 04-9484 AHM (SHx) DECLARATION OF ANDREA PALLIOS ROBERTS IN SUPPORT OF GOOGLE INC.'S EX P,4RTE APPLICATION TO STAY THE COURT'S JUNG I6.2010 ORDER

,^
Andrea Pallios Roberts