Overture Services, Inc. v. Google Inc.

Filing 109

MOTION to Compel [Plaintiff Overture Services, Inc.'s Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Production of Damages Documents; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion] filed by Overture Services, Inc.. Motion Hearing set for 3/2/2004 09:00 AM. (Attachments: # 1)(Byrnes, Andrew) (Filed on 1/28/2004)

Overture Services, Inc. v. Google Inc.

Doc. 109 Att. 1

Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW

Document 109-2

Filed 01/28/2004

Page 1 of 39

1 2 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

ROBERT T. HASLAM (#71134) ROBERT D. FRAM (#126750) M. PATRICIA THAYER (#90818) S. ELIZABETH MITCHELL (#187053) ANDREW C. BYRNES (#191516) HELLER EHRMAN WHITE & MCAULIFFE LLP 333 Bush Street San Francisco, CA 94104-2878 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE JACK C. BERENZWEIG WILLIAM H. FRANKEL JASON C. WHITE NBC Tower--Suite 3600 455 North Cityfront Plaza Drive Chicago, Illinois 60611 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Plaintiff, OVERTURE SERVICES, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION OVERTURE SERVICES, INC., Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE INC., Defendant. E-Filing Case No.: 02-01991 JSW (EDL) APPENDIX A TO MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DAMAGES DOCUMENTS Hearing Date: March 2, 2004 Hearing Time: 9:00 a.m. Hon. Elizabeth D. Laporte

APPENDIX A TO OVERTURE'S MOT. TO COMPEL 02-01991 JSW (EDL)

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW

Document 109-2

Filed 01/28/2004

Page 2 of 39

1 2 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

APPENDIX A TO MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DAMAGES DOCUMENTS Plaintiff Overture Services, Inc.'s ("Overture") Motion to Compel requests that the Court set April 1, 2004 as the date for the production of "damages documents," as to which the parties agreed to delay production until after the claim construction hearing. Defendant Google, Inc. ("Google"), for the most part, did not proffer this agreement as an objection in its written responses to Overture's document requests, but rather simply has refrained from producing documents that could be characterized as related to damages and now refuses to agree to any date certain or timeframe within which such documents will be produced. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 37-2, Overture sets forth below the document requests that call for documents related to damages, Google's written objections and responses thereto, and Overture's contention as to why Overture is entitled to production of these documents on or before April 1, 2004. Please note that, even where Google's written response agrees to produce the responsive documents and makes no mention of the parties' agreement to delay production until after the claim construction hearing, it is Overture's understanding that these requests call for the "damages documents" that were the subject of the parties' agreement and are now those documents as to which Google has refused to provide any date certain or timeframe within which such documents will be produced. OVERTURE'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26: All documents relating to any trade research, market research, consumer research, or other research conducted by or on behalf of Google in connection with its decision to design, develop, market, or operate Google's Sponsored Search System. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26: Google objects to this request on the ground that the term "Google's Sponsored Search System" is vague, ambiguous and compound; and renders the request overbroad and unduly burdensome. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Google responds that it will produce documents within its possession that are responsive to this 1
APPENDIX A TO OVERTURE'S MOT. TO COMPEL 02-01991 JSW (EDL)

Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW

Document 109-2

Filed 01/28/2004

Page 3 of 39

1 2 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

request. WHY OVERTURE IS ENTITLED TO THE REQUESTED DISCOVERY: Overture is entitled to discovery from Google that relates to facts about Google's accused Sponsored Search System that could form the basis for Overture's damages claim, including those requested in Request No. 26. Documents about the market for the accused system are relevant to the damages to which Overture is entitled by this lawsuit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The discovery requested is proportional to the i mportance of the damages issue to the case and Overture's need for the information to prepare its damages case and analysis, is not unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, and cannot be found from a source other than Google without substantial difficulty, if at all. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2). There is no justification for further delay in Google's producing these documents. The claim construction hearing, which was set for March 2003 when the parties' made their agreement to postpone damages discovery, is currently set for March 24, 2004. In addition, this case is now nearly two years old. The vast majority of the document requests at issue have been outstanding since August 2002; all will have been outstanding at least roughly four months on April 1, 2004. Finally, Overture is requesting that Google be compelled to produce the documents after the claim construction hearing, which accords in full with the parties' 2002 agreement. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27: All documents relating to any need, or to any perceived need, in the marketplace for Google's Sponsored Search System. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO 27: Google objects to this request on the ground that the term "Google's Sponsored Search System" is vague, ambiguous and compound, and renders the request overbroad and unduly burdensome. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Google responds that it will produce documents within its possession that are responsive to this request. 2
APPENDIX A TO OVERTURE'S MOT. TO COMPEL 02-01991 JSW (EDL)

Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW

Document 109-2

Filed 01/28/2004

Page 4 of 39

1 2 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

WHY OVERTURE IS ENTITLED TO THE REQUESTED DISCOVERY: Overture is entitled to discovery from Google that relates to facts about Google's accused Sponsored Search System that could form the basis for Overture's damages claim, including those requested in Request No. 27. Documents about the market for the accused system are relevant to the damages to which Overture is entitled by this lawsuit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The discovery requested is proportional to the importance of the damages issue to the case and Overture's need for the information to prepare its damages case and analysis, is not unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, and cannot be found from a source other than Google without substantial difficulty, if at all. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2). Overture hereby incorporates by reference its discussion of the lack of justification for further delay regarding Request No. 26. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28: All documents relating to Google's knowledge or awareness of Overture's design, development, or operation of Overture's Sponsored Search System. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28: Google objects to this request on the ground that the term "Overture's Sponsored Search System" is vague, ambiguous and compound, and renders the request overbroad and unduly burdensome. Google further objects to this request to the extent that it calls for documents protected by the attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine. Google further objects to this request to the extent that interpretation of the request calls for a legal conclusion. Google further objects to this request to the extent that it is inconsistent with Patent L.R. 2-5. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Google responds that it will produce nonprivileged documents within its possession that are responsive to this request. WHY OVERTURE IS ENTITLED TO THE REQUESTED DISCOVERY: Documents about Google's knowledge and use of information regarding Overture's system are relevant to the damages to which Overture is entitled by this lawsuit, as well as 3
APPENDIX A TO OVERTURE'S MOT. TO COMPEL 02-01991 JSW (EDL)

Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW

Document 109-2

Filed 01/28/2004

Page 5 of 39

1 2 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

the willfulness of Google's infringement. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The discovery requested is proportional to the importance of the damages issue to the case and Overture's need for the information to prepare its damages case and analysis, is not unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, and cannot be found from a source other than Google without substantial difficulty, if at all. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2). Patent Local Rule 2-5, read in conjunction with Patent Local Rule 3-8, suggest only that a party may withhold until 50 days after service of the Court's claim construction ruling an opinion of counsel proffered to defend against a charge of willful infringement and documents relating to that opinion. Request No. 28 includes, but is not limited to, such documents. Overture hereby incorporates by reference its discussion of the lack of justification for further delay regarding Request No. 26. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29: All documents relating to any comparison of Google's Sponsored Search System and other Sponsored Search System, including Overture's Sponsored Search System. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29: Google objects to this request on the ground that the terms "Google's Sponsored Search System" and "Overture's Sponsored Search System" are vague, ambiguous and compound, and render the request overbroad and unduly burdensome. Google further objects to this request to the "tent that it calls for documents protected by the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. Google further objects to this request to the extent that interpretation of the request calls for a legal conclusion. Google further objects to this request to the extent that it is inconsistent with Patent L.R. 2-5. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Google responds that it will produce non-privileged documents within its possession that are responsive to this request. WHY OVERTURE IS ENTITLED TO THE REQUESTED DISCOVERY: Overture is entitled to discovery from Google that relates to facts about Google's accused Sponsored Search System that could form the basis for Overture's damages claim, 4
APPENDIX A TO OVERTURE'S MOT. TO COMPEL 02-01991 JSW (EDL)

Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW

Document 109-2

Filed 01/28/2004

Page 6 of 39

1 2 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

including those requested in Request No. 29. Documents relating to comparisons between Google's accused system and other systems in the marketplace are relevant to the damages to which Overture is entitled by this lawsuit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The discovery requested is proportional to the importance of the damages issue to the case and Overture's need for the information to prepare its damages case and analysis, is not unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, and cannot be found from a source other than Google without substantial difficulty, if at all. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2). Patent Local Rule 2-5 is inapposite to Request No. 29. Rule 2-5 permits a party to object to discovery as premature where, inter alia, it seeks a comparison between the claims and the accused system, i.e., infringement contentions. Request No. 29 requests documents relating to a comparison between the accused s ystem and other systems, not between the accused system and the claims. Overture hereby incorporates by reference its discussion of the lack of justification for further delay regarding Request No. 26. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31: All annual reports for Google. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31: Google responds that it will produce documents within its possession that are responsive to this request. WHY OVERTURE IS ENTITLED TO THE REQUESTED DISCOVERY: There is no question that Google's annual reports are relevant to the damages to which Overture is entitled by this lawsuit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The discovery requested is proportional to the importance of the damages issue to the case and Overture's need for the information to prepare its damages case and analysis, is not unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, and cannot be found from a source other than Google more easily than from Google itself. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2). Overture hereby incorporates by reference its discussion of the lack of justification for further delay regarding Request No. 26. 5
APPENDIX A TO OVERTURE'S MOT. TO COMPEL 02-01991 JSW (EDL)

Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW

Document 109-2

Filed 01/28/2004

Page 7 of 39

1 2 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

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32: All documents relating to advertising plans, business plans, estimates, revenue forecasts; web traffic reports, marketing plans or efforts, promotional programs, or strategies on the part of Google concerning Google's Sponsored Search System. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32: Google objects to this request on the ground that the term "Google's Sponsored Search System" is vague, ambiguous and compound, and renders the request overbroad and unduly burdensome. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Google responds that it will produce documents within its possession that are responsive to this request. WHY OVERTURE IS ENTITLED TO THE REQUESTED DISCOVERY: Overture is entitled to discovery from Google that relates to facts about Google's accused Sponsored Search System that could form the basis for Overture's damages claim, including those requested in Request No. 32. Documents responsive to Request No. 32 are relevant to the damages to which Overture is entitled by this lawsuit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The discovery requested is proportional to the importance of the damages issue to the case and Overture's need for the information to prepare its damages case and analysis, is not unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, and cannot be found from a source other than Google without substantial difficulty, if at all. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2). Overture hereby incorporates by reference its discussion of the lack of justification for further delay regarding Request No. 26. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 33: Copies of all advertising and promotional materials for Google's Sponsored Search System. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 33: Google objects to this request on the ground that the term "Google's Sponsored Search System" is vague, ambiguous and compound, and renders the request overbroad and unduly burdensome. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Google 6
APPENDIX A TO OVERTURE'S MOT. TO COMPEL 02-01991 JSW (EDL)

Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW

Document 109-2

Filed 01/28/2004

Page 8 of 39

1 2 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

responds that it will produce documents within its possession that are responsive to this request. WHY OVERTURE IS ENTITLED TO THE REQUESTED DISCOVERY: Overture is entitled to discovery from Google that relates to facts about Google's accused Sponsored Search System that could form the basis for Overture's damages claim, including those requested in Request No. 33. Google's advertising and promotional materials for the accused system are relevant to the damages to which Overture is entitled by this laws uit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The discovery requested is proportional to the importance of the damages issue to the case and Overture's need for the information to prepare its damages case and analysis, is not unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, and cannot be found from a source other than Google without substantial difficulty, if at all. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2). Overture hereby incorporates by reference its discussion of the lack of justification for further delay regarding Request No. 26. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 34: All documents relating to any representation or submission made by Google to another about Google's Sponsored Search System, including, but not limited to, advertisements, promotional materials, data sheets, brochures, reports, catalogues, call reports by inside or field sales people, internal or external communications, letters, memoranda, notes, electronic mail transmissions, and submissions to any local, state, federal, or foreign Governmental entity. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 34: Google objects to this request on the ground that the term "Google's Sponsored Search System" is vague, ambiguous and compound, and renders the request overbroad and unduly burdensome. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Google responds that it will produce documents within its possession that are responsive to this request. WHY OVERTURE IS ENTITLED TO THE REQUESTED DISCOVERY: 7
APPENDIX A TO OVERTURE'S MOT. TO COMPEL 02-01991 JSW (EDL)

Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW

Document 109-2

Filed 01/28/2004

Page 9 of 39

1 2 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

Overture is entitled to discovery from Google that relates to facts about Google's accused Sponsored Search System that could form the basis for Overture's damages claim, including those requested in Request No. 34. Documents related to Google's representations or submissions regarding the accused system are relevant to the damages to which Overture is entitled by this lawsuit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The discovery requested is proportional to the importance of the damages issue to the case and Overture's need for the information to prepare its damages case and analysis, is not unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, and cannot be found from a source other than Google without substantial difficulty, if at all. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2). Overture hereby incorporates by reference its discussion of the lack of justification for further delay regarding Request No. 26. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 35: All documents relating to any comments received by Google from another regarding Google's Sponsored Search System, including, but not limited to, complaints, praise, or suggestions regarding Google's Sponsored Search System. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 35: Google objects to this request on the ground that the term "Google's Sponsored Search System" is vague, ambiguous and compound, and renders the request overbroad and unduly burdensome. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Google responds that it will produce documents within its possession that are responsive to this request. WHY OVERTURE IS ENTITLED TO THE REQUESTED DISCOVERY: Overture is entitled to discovery from Google that relates to facts about Google's accused Sponsored Search System that could form the basis for Overture's damages claim, including those requested in Request No. 35. Documents regarding comments about the accused system are relevant to the damages to which Overture is entitled by this lawsuit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The discovery requested is proportional to the importance of the damages issue to the case and Overture's need for the information to prepare its 8
APPENDIX A TO OVERTURE'S MOT. TO COMPEL 02-01991 JSW (EDL)

Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW

Document 109-2

Filed 01/28/2004

Page 10 of 39

1 2 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

damages case and analysis, is not unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, and cannot be found from a source other than Google without substantial difficulty, if at all. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2). Overture hereby incorporates by reference its discussion of the lack of justification for further delay regarding Request No. 26. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 36: All documents relating to the total revenue that Google has earned, directly or indirectly, from the sale or advertisement of products or services through or in conjunction with Google's Sponsored Search System. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 36: Google objects to this request on the ground that the term "Google's Sponsored Search System" is vague, ambiguous and compound, and renders the request overbroad and unduly burdensome. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Google responds that it will produce documents within its possession that are responsive to this request. WHY OVERTURE IS ENTITLED TO THE REQUESTED DISCOVERY: Overture is entitled to discovery from Google that relates to facts about Google's accused Sponsored Search System that could form the basis for Overture's damages claim, including those requested in Request No. 36. Documents related to the revenue earned from the accused system are relevant to the damages to which Overture is entitled by this lawsuit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The discovery requested is proportional to the importance of the damages issue to the case and Overture's need for the information to prepare its damages case and analysis, is not unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, and cannot be found from a source other than Google without substantial difficulty, if at all. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2). Overture hereby incorporates by reference its discussion of the lack of justification for further delay regarding Request No. 26. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37: 9
APPENDIX A TO OVERTURE'S MOT. TO COMPEL 02-01991 JSW (EDL)

Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW

Document 109-2

Filed 01/28/2004

Page 11 of 39

1 2 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

All documents relating to the profits earned by Google from the sale or advertisement of products or services through or in conjunction with Google's Sponsored Search System. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37: Google objects to this request on the ground that the term "Google's Sponsored Search System" is vague, ambiguous and compound, and renders the request overbroad and unduly burdensome. Google further objects to this request on the ground that the phrase "through or in conjunction with" is vague and ambiguous. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Google responds that it will produce documents within its possession that are responsive to this request. WHY OVERTURE IS ENTITLED TO THE REQUESTED DISCOVERY: Overture is entitled to discovery from Google that relates to facts about Google's accused Sponsored Search System that could form the basis for Overture's damages claim, including those requested in Request No. 37. Documents related to Google's profits related to the accused system are relevant to the damages to which Overture is entitled by this lawsuit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The discovery requested is proportional to the importance of the damages issue to the case and Overture's need for the information to prepare its damages case and analysis, is not unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, and cannot be found from a source other than Google without substantial difficulty, if at all. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2). Overture hereby incorporates by reference its discussion of the lack of justification for further delay regarding Request No. 26. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 38: All income statements relating to Google's Sponsored Search System. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 38: Google objects to this request on the ground that the term "Google's Sponsored Search System" is vague, ambiguous and compound, and renders the request overbroad and unduly burdensome. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Google 10
APPENDIX A TO OVERTURE'S MOT. TO COMPEL 02-01991 JSW (EDL)

Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW

Document 109-2

Filed 01/28/2004

Page 12 of 39

1 2 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

responds that it will produce documents within its possession that are responsive to this request. WHY OVERTURE IS ENTITLED TO THE REQUESTED DISCOVERY: Overture is entitled to discovery from Google that relates to facts about Google's accused Sponsored Search System that could form the basis for Overture's damages claim, including those requested in Request No. 38. Income statements relating to Google's accused system are relevant to the damages to which Overture is entitled by this lawsuit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The discovery requested is proportional to the importance of the damages issue to the case and Overture's need for the information to prepare its damages case and analysis, is not unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, and cannot be found from a source other than Google without substantial difficulty, if at all. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2). Overture hereby incorporates by reference its discussion of the lack of justification for further delay regarding Request No. 26. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 39: All balance sheets relating to Google's Sponsored Search System. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 39: Google objects to this request on the ground that the term "Google's Sponsored Search System" is vague, ambiguous and compound, and renders the request overbroad and unduly burdensome. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Google responds that it will produce documents within its possession that are responsive to this request. WHY OVERTURE IS ENTITLED TO THE REQUESTED DISCOVERY: Overture is entitled to discovery from Google that relates to facts about Google's accused Sponsored Search System that could form the basis for Overture's damages claim, including those requested in Request No. 39. Balance sheets related to Google's accused system are relevant to the damages to which Overture is entitled by this lawsuit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The discovery requested is proportional to the i mportance of the 11
APPENDIX A TO OVERTURE'S MOT. TO COMPEL 02-01991 JSW (EDL)

Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW

Document 109-2

Filed 01/28/2004

Page 13 of 39

1 2 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

damages issue to the case and Overture's need for the information to prepare its damages case and analysis, is not unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, and cannot be found from a source other than Google without substantial difficulty, if at all. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2). Overture hereby incorporates by reference its discussion of the lack of justification for further delay regarding Request No. 26. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 40: All profit and loss statements relating to Google's Sponsored Search System. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO 40: Google objects to this request on the ground that the term "Google's Sponsored Search System" is vague, ambiguous and compound, and renders the request overbroad and unduly burdensome. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Google responds that it will produce documents within its possession that are responsive to this request. WHY OVERTURE IS ENTITLED TO THE REQUESTED DISCOVERY: Overture is entitled to discovery from Google that relates to facts about Google's accused Sponsored Search System that could form the basis for Overture's damages claim, including those requested in Request No. 40. Profit and loss statements relating to Google's accused system are relevant to the damages to which Overture is entitled by this lawsuit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The discovery requested is proportional to the importance of the damages issue to the case and Overture's need for the information to prepare its damages case and analysis, is not unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, and cannot be found from a source other than Google without substantial difficulty, if at all. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2). Overture hereby incorporates by reference its discussion of the lack of justification for further delay regarding Request No. 26. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 41: All audited or un-audited financial reports relating to Google's Sponsored Search 12
APPENDIX A TO OVERTURE'S MOT. TO COMPEL 02-01991 JSW (EDL)

Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW

Document 109-2

Filed 01/28/2004

Page 14 of 39

1 2 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

System RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 41: Google objects to this request on the ground that the term "Google's Sponsored Search System" is vague, ambiguous and compound, and renders the request overbroad and unduly burdensome. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Google responds that it will produce documents within its possession that are responsive to this request. WHY OVERTURE IS ENTITLED TO THE REQUESTED DISCOVERY: Overture is entitled to discovery from Google that relates to facts about Google's accused Sponsored Search System that could form the basis for Overture's damages claim, including those requested in Request No. 41. Financial reports relating to Google's accused system are relevant to the damages to which Overture is entitled by this lawsuit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The discovery requested is proportional to the importance of the damages issue to the case and Overture's need for the information to prepare its damages case and analysis, is not unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, and cannot be found from a source other than Google without substantial difficulty, if at all. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2). Overture hereby incorporates by reference its discussion of the lack of justification for further delay regarding Request No. 26. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 42: All documents that identify any fees or costs incurred by Google in the design; development, and operation of Google's Sponsored Search System. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 42: Google objects to this request on the ground that the term "Google's Sponsored Search System" is vague, ambiguous and compound, and renders the request overbroad and unduly burdensome. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Google responds that it will produce documents within its possession that are responsive to this request. 13
APPENDIX A TO OVERTURE'S MOT. TO COMPEL 02-01991 JSW (EDL)

Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW

Document 109-2

Filed 01/28/2004

Page 15 of 39

1 2 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

WHY OVERTURE IS ENTITLED TO THE REQUESTED DISCOVERY: Overture is entitled to discovery from Google that relates to facts about Google's accused Sponsored Search System that could form the basis for Overture's damages claim, including those requested in Request No. 42. Documents regarding Google's fees or costs related to its accused system are relevant to the damages to which Overture is entitled by this lawsuit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The discovery requested is proportional to the importance of the damages issue to the case and Overture's need for the information to prepare its damages case and analysis, is not unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, and cannot be found from a source other than Google without substantial difficulty, if at all. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2). Overture hereby incorporates by reference its discussion of the lack of justification for further delay regarding Request No. 26. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 43: Documents sufficient to identify the amount and nature of all investments made by Google in facilities and equipment to design, develop, and operate Google's Sponsored Search System. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 43: Google objects to this request on the ground that the term "Google's Sponsored Search System" is vague, ambiguous and compound, and renders the request overbroad and unduly burdensome. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Google responds that it will produce documents within its possession that are responsive to this request. WHY OVERTURE IS ENTITLED TO THE REQUESTED DISCOVERY: Overture is entitled to discovery from Google that relates to facts about Google's accused Sponsored Search System that could form the basis for Overture's damages claim, including those requested in Request No. 43. Documents regarding Google's investments in its accused system are relevant to the damages to which Overture is entitled by this lawsuit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The discovery requested is proportional to the 14
APPENDIX A TO OVERTURE'S MOT. TO COMPEL 02-01991 JSW (EDL)

Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW

Document 109-2

Filed 01/28/2004

Page 16 of 39

1 2 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

importance of the damages issue to the case and Overture's need for the information to prepare its damages case and analysis, is not unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, and cannot be found from a source other than Google without substantial difficulty, if at all. See Fed. R. Ci v. P. 26(b)(2). Overture hereby incorporates by reference its discussion of the lack of justification for further delay regarding Request No. 26. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 44: Documents sufficient to establish the cost to Google of advertising, marketing, and providing the products or services that it offers through or in conjunction with Google's Sponsored Search System. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 44: Google objects to this request on the ground that the term "Google's Sponsored Search System" is vague, ambiguous and compound, and renders the request overbroad and unduly burdensome. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Google responds that it will produce documents within its possession that are responsive to this request. WHY OVERTURE IS ENTITLED TO THE REQUESTED DISCOVERY: Overture is entitled to discovery from Google that relates to facts about Google's accused Sponsored Search System that could form the basis for Overture's damages claim, including those requested in Request No. 44. Documents regarding Google's costs relating to the accused system are relevant to the damages to which Overture is entitled by this lawsuit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The discovery requested is proportional to the importance of the damages issue to the case and Overture's need for the information to prepare its damages case and analysis, is not unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, and cannot be found from a source other than Google without substantial difficulty, if at all. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2). Overture hereby incorporates by reference its discussion of the lack of justification for further delay regarding Request No. 26. 15
APPENDIX A TO OVERTURE'S MOT. TO COMPEL 02-01991 JSW (EDL)

Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW

Document 109-2

Filed 01/28/2004

Page 17 of 39

1 2 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

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 45: All documents that identify and explain Google's accounting books and records as they relate to Google's Sponsored Search System. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 45: Google objects to this request on the ground that the term "Google's Sponsored Search System" is vague, ambiguous and compound, and renders the request overbroad and unduly burdensome. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Google responds that it will produce documents within its possession that are responsive to this request. WHY OVERTURE IS ENTITLED TO THE REQUESTED DISCOVERY: Overture is entitled to discovery from Google that relates to facts about Google's accused Sponsored Search System that could form the basis for Overture's damages claim, including those requested in Request No. 45. Google's accounting books and records relating to the accused system are relevant to the damages to which Overture is entitled by this lawsuit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The discovery requested is proportional to the importance of the damages issue to the case and Overture's need for the information to prepare its damages case and analysis, is not unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, and cannot be found from a source other than Google without substantial difficulty, if at all. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2). Overture hereby incorporates by reference its discussion of the lack of justification for further delay regarding Request No. 26. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 46: All documents relating to any licenses, agreements, partner agreements, or letters of intent entered into by Google relating to Google's Sponsored Search System, including, but not limited to, any licenses, agreements, partner agreements, affiliate agreements, or letters of intent. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 46: Google objects to this request on the ground that the term "Google's Sponsored 16
APPENDIX A TO OVERTURE'S MOT. TO COMPEL 02-01991 JSW (EDL)

Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW

Document 109-2

Filed 01/28/2004

Page 18 of 39

1 2 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

Search System" is vague, ambiguous and compound, and renders the request overbroad and unduly burdensome. Google further objects to this request to the extent that it calls for documents protected by the attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Google responds that it will produce nonprivileged documents within its possession that are responsive to this request. WHY OVERTURE IS ENTITLED TO THE REQUESTED DISCOVERY: Overture is entitled to discovery from Google that relates to facts about Google's accused Sponsored Search System that could form the basis for Overture's damages claim, including those requested in Request No. 46. Documents relating to licenses or agreements regarding the accused system are relevant to the damages to which Overture is entitled by this lawsuit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The discovery requested is proportional to the importance of the damages issue to the case and Overture's need for the information to prepare its damages case and analysis, is not unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, and cannot be found from a source other than Google without substantial difficulty, if at all. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2). Overture hereby incorporates by reference its discussion of the lack of justification for further delay regarding Request No. 26. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 47: All documents relating to any indemnification, promise of any indemnification, or hold harmless agreement given or received by Google with respect to the `361 patent or any of the claimed subject matter thereof. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 47: Google objects to this request to the extent that it calls for documents protected by the attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Google responds that it will produce non-privileged documents within its possession that are responsive to this request. WHY OVERTURE IS ENTITLED TO THE REQUESTED DISCOVERY: Documents relating to indemnification regarding the `361 patent are relevant to the 17
APPENDIX A TO OVERTURE'S MOT. TO COMPEL 02-01991 JSW (EDL)

Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW

Document 109-2

Filed 01/28/2004

Page 19 of 39

1 2 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

damages to which Overture is entitled by this lawsuit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The discovery requested is proportional to the importance of the damages issue to the case and Overture's need for the information to prepare its damages case and analysis, is not unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, and cannot be found from a source other than Google without substantial difficulty, if at all. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2). Overture hereby incorporates by reference its discussion of the lack of justification for further delay regarding Request No. 26. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 48: All documents relating to any indemnification, promise of any indemnification, or hold harmless agreement given or received by Google with respect to Google's Sponsored Search System. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 48: Google objects to this request on the ground that the term "Google's Sponsored Search System" is vague, ambiguous and compound, and renders the request overbroad and unduly burdensome. Google further objects to this request to the extent that it calls for documents protected by the attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Google responds that it will produce nonprivileged documents within its possession that are responsive to this request. WHY OVERTURE IS ENTITLED TO THE REQUESTED DISCOVERY: Documents relating to indemnification regarding the accused system are relevant to the damages to which Overture is entitled by this lawsuit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The discovery requested is proportional to the importance of the damages issue to the case and Overture's need for the information to prepare its damages case and analysis, is not unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, and cannot be found from a source other than Google without substantial difficulty, if at all. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2). Overture hereby incorporates by reference its discussion of the lack of justification for further delay regarding Request No. 26. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 49: 18
APPENDIX A TO OVERTURE'S MOT. TO COMPEL 02-01991 JSW (EDL)

Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW

Document 109-2

Filed 01/28/2004

Page 20 of 39

1 2 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

All documents relating to any agreements or arrangements under which Google licensed, attempted to license, obtained a license, or attempted to obtain a license and that relate to Google's Sponsored Search System, including all documents relating to any negotiations leading to any such agreement or arrangement RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 49: Google objects to this request on the ground that the term "Google's Sponsored Search System" is vague, ambiguous and compound, and renders the request overbroad and unduly burdensome. Google further objects to this request to the extent that it calls for documents protected by the attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection. Google responds that it will produce nonprivileged documents within its possession that are responsive to this request. WHY OVERTURE IS ENTITLED TO THE REQUESTED DISCOVERY: Overture is entitled to discovery from Google that relates to facts about Google's accused Sponsored Search System that could form the basis for Overture's damages claim, including those requested in Request No. 49. Documents relating to licensing of the accused system are relevant to the damages to which Overture is entitled by this lawsuit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The discovery requested is proportional to the importance of the damages issue to the case and Overture's need for the information to prepare its damages case and analysis, is not unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, and cannot be found from a source other than Google without substantial difficulty, if at all. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2). Overture hereby incorporates by reference its discussion of the lack of justification for further delay regarding Request No. 26. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 50: All documents relating to any agreements or arrangements under which Google licensed, attempted to license, obtained a license, or attempted to obtain a license, including all documents relating to any negotiations leading to any such agreement or arrangement. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 50: 19
APPENDIX A TO OVERTURE'S MOT. TO COMPEL 02-01991 JSW (EDL)

Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW

Document 109-2

Filed 01/28/2004

Page 21 of 39

1 2 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

Google objects to this request to the extent that it calls for documents protected by the attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Google responds that it will produce non-privileged documents within its possession that are responsive to this request. WHY OVERTURE IS ENTITLED TO THE REQUESTED DISCOVERY: Documents relating to Google's licensing practices are relevant to the damages to which Overture is entitled by this lawsuit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The discovery requested is proportional to the importance of the damages issue to the case and Overture's need for the information to prepare its damages case and analysis, is not unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, and cannot be found from a source other than Google without substantial difficulty, if at all. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2). Overture hereby incorporates by reference its discussion of the lack of justification for further delay regarding Request No. 26. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 51: All documents relating to Google's patent licensing policies or practices. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 51: Google objects to this request to the extent that it calls for documents protected by the attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Google responds, at it will produce non privileged documents within its possession that are responsive to this request. WHY OVERTURE IS ENTITLED TO THE REQUESTED DISCOVERY: Documents relating to Google's licensing policies and practices are relevant to the damages to which Overture is entitled by this lawsuit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The discovery requested is proportional to the importance of the damages issue to the case and Overture's need for the information to prepare its damages case and analysis, is not unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, and cannot be found from a source other than Google without substantial difficulty, if at all. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2). Overture hereby incorporates by reference its discussion of the lack of justification 20
APPENDIX A TO OVERTURE'S MOT. TO COMPEL 02-01991 JSW (EDL)

Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW

Document 109-2

Filed 01/28/2004

Page 22 of 39

1 2 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

for further delay regarding Request No. 26. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 52: All documents relating to any patent license(s) that Google contends are relevant to their issues of damages or a reasonable royalty in this case. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 52: Google objects to this request to the extent that it tails for documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, or the work-product doctrine. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Google responds that it will produce non-privileged documents within its possession that are responsive to this request. WHY OVERTURE IS ENTITLED TO THE REQUESTED DISCOVERY: Documents relating to licenses that Google believes are relevant to damages in this case are, in fact, relevant to the damages to which Overture is entitled by this lawsuit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The discovery requested is proportional to the importance of the damages issue to the case and Overture's need for the information to prepare its damages case and analysis, is not unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, and cannot be found from a source other than Google without substantial difficulty, if at all. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2). Overture hereby incorporates by reference its discussion of the lack of justification for further delay regarding Request No. 26. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 53: All documents relating to or upon which Google will rely in support of any amount or rate that Google considers to be a reasonable royalty for their use or operation of Google's Sponsored Search System, as it relates to the `361 patent. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 53: Google objects to this request on the ground that the term "Google's Sponsored Search System" is vague, ambiguous and compound, and renders the request overbroad and unduly burdensome. Google further objects to this request to the extent that it calls for documents protected by the attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine. Subject 21
APPENDIX A TO OVERTURE'S MOT. TO COMPEL 02-01991 JSW (EDL)

Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW

Document 109-2

Filed 01/28/2004

Page 23 of 39

1 2 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

to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Google responds that it will produce nonprivileged documents within its possession that are responsive to this request. WHY OVERTURE IS ENTITLED TO THE REQUESTED DISCOVERY: Overture is entitled to discovery from Google that relates to facts about Google's accused Sponsored Search System that could form the basis for Overture's damages claim, including those requested in Request No. 53. Documents relating to Google's position on reasonable royalty are relevant to the damages to which Overture is entitled by this lawsuit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The discovery requested is proportional to the importance of the damages issue to the case and Overture's need for the information to prepare its damages case and analysis, is not unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, and cannot be found from a source other than Google without substantial difficulty, if at all. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2). Overture hereby incorporates by reference its discussion of the lack of justification for further delay regarding Request No. 26. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 54: All documents relating to the nature, size, and scope of the market for, the availability of, and the demand for Sponsored Search Systems in general or Google's Sponsored Search System in particular. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 54: Google objects to this request on the ground that the terms "Sponsored Search Systems" and "Google's Sponsored Search System" are vague, ambiguous and compound, and render the request overbroad and unduly burdensome. Google further objects to this request to the extent that it calls for documents protected by the attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Google responds that it will produce non-privileged documents within its possession that are responsive to this request. WHY OVERTURE IS ENTITLED TO THE REQUESTED DISCOVERY: Documents relating to the market for the accused system and sponsored search 22
APPENDIX A TO OVERTURE'S MOT. TO COMPEL 02-01991 JSW (EDL)

Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW

Document 109-2

Filed 01/28/2004

Page 24 of 39

1 2 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

systems generally are relevant to the damages to which Overture is entitled by this lawsuit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The discovery requested is proportional to the importance of the damages issue to the case and Overture's need for the information to prepare its damages case and analysis, is not unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, and cannot be found from a source other than Google without substantial difficulty, if at all. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2). Overture hereby incorporates by reference its discussion of the lack of justification for further delay regarding Request No. 26. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 55: All documents relating to Google's market share as a percentage of total sales in the Sponsored Search Systems industry, whether expressed in units or dollars. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 55: Google objects to this request on the ground that the term "Sponsored Search Systems" is vague, ambiguous and compound, and renders the request overbroad and unduly burdensome. Google further objects to this request to the extent that it calls for documents protected by the attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Google responds that it will produce nonprivileged documents within its possession that are responsive to this request. WHY OVERTURE IS ENTITLED TO THE REQUESTED DISCOVERY: Documents relating to Google's market share are relevant to the damages to which Overture is entitled by this lawsuit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The discovery requested is proportional to the importance of the damages issue to the case and Overture's need for the information to prepare its damages case and analysis, is not unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, and cannot be found from a source other than Google without substantial difficulty, if at all. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2). Overture hereby incorporates by reference its discussion of the lack of justification for further delay regarding Request No. 26. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 56: 23
APPENDIX A TO OVERTURE'S MOT. TO COMPEL 02-01991 JSW (EDL)

Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW

Document 109-2

Filed 01/28/2004

Page 25 of 39

1 2 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

All documents relating to Sponsored Search System products or services that have been marketed or sold in competition with Google's Sponsored Search System, including any competitive analyses of such products or services. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 56: Google objects to this request on the ground that the terms "Sponsored Search Systems" and "Google's Sponsored Search System" are vague, ambiguous and compound, and render the request overbroad and unduly burdensome. Google further objects to this request to the extent that it calls for documents protected by the attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Google responds that it will produce non-privileged documents within its possession that are responsive to this request. WHY OVERTURE IS ENTITLED TO THE REQUESTED DISCOVERY: Documents relating to products and services competing with the accused system are relevant to the damages to which Overture is entitled by this lawsuit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The discovery requested is proportional to the importance of the damages issue to the case and Overture's need for the information to prepare its damages case and analysis, is not unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, and cannot be found from a source other than Google without substantial difficulty, if at all. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2). Overture hereby incorporates by reference its discussion of the lack of justification for further delay regarding Request No. 26. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 57: All documents relating to each product, system, or service that Google contends is an acceptable non-infringing alternative to the apparatus, systems, or methods claimed in the `361 patent. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 57: Google objects to this request to the extent that it calls for documents protected by the attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection. Google responds that it will produce non-privileged documents 24
APPENDIX A TO OVERTURE'S MOT. TO COMPEL 02-01991 JSW (EDL)

Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW

Document 109-2

Filed 01/28/2004

Page 26 of 39

1 2 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

within its possession that are responsive to this request. WHY OVERTURE IS ENTITLED TO THE REQUESTED DISCOVERY: Documents relating to alleged non-infringing alternatives are relevant to the damages to which Overture is entitled by this lawsuit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The discovery requested is proportional to the importance of the damages issue to the case and Overture's need for the information to prepare its damages case and analysis, is not unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, and cannot be found from a source other than Google without substantial difficulty, if at all. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2). Overture hereby incorporates by reference its discussion of the lack of justification for further delay regarding Request No. 26. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 58: All documents relating to any disputes, including, without limitation, cease and desist matters, litigation, arbitration, or administrative procedures in which Google was or is involved and that relate to Google's Sponsored Search System. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 58: Google objects to this request on the ground that the term "Google's Sponsored Search System" is vague, ambiguous and compound, and renders the request overbroad and unduly burdensome. Google further objects to this request to the extent that it seeks documents that are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Google further objects to this request to the extent that it calls for documents protected by the attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Google responds that it will produce nonprivileged documents within its possession that are responsive to this request. WHY OVERTURE IS ENTITLED TO THE REQUESTED DISCOVERY: Overture is entitled to discovery from Google that relates to facts about Google's accused Sponsored Search System that could form the basis for Overture's damages claim, including those requested in Request No. 58. Documents relating to disputes regarding Google's accused system are relevant to the damages to which Overture is entitled by this 25
APPENDIX A TO OVERTURE'S MOT. TO COMPEL 02-01991 JSW (EDL)

Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW

Document 109-2

Filed 01/28/2004

Page 27 of 39

1 2 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

lawsuit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The discovery requested is proportional to the importance of the damages issue to the case and Overture's need for the information to prepare its damages case and analysis, is not unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, and cannot be found from a source other than Google without substantial difficulty, if at all. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2). Overture hereby incorporates by reference its discussion of the lack of justification for further delay regarding Request No. 26. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 59: All documents relating to any consideration, negotiation, recommendation, or proposal to license, buy, acquire, or otherwise obtain rights under the `361 patent. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 59: Google objects to this request to the extent that it calls for documents protected by the attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine. Google further objects to this request to the extent that it calls for documents that are readily obtainable from Plaintiff or from other sources which are less burdensome and/or less expensive. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Google responds that it will produce nonprivileged documents within its possession that are responsive to this request. WHY OVERTURE IS ENTITLED TO THE REQUESTED DISCOVERY: Documents relating to obtaining the rights to the `361 patent at issue in this lawsuit are relevant to the damages to which Overture is entitled by this lawsuit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The discovery requested is proportional to the importance of the damages issue to the case and Overture's need for the information to prepare its damages case and analysis, is not unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, and cannot be found from a source other than Google without substantial difficulty, if at all. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2). Overture hereby incorporates by reference its discussion of the lack of justification for further delay regarding Request No. 26. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 60: All documents relating to any money or monetary funds that have ever been set 26
APPENDIX A TO OVERTURE'S MOT. TO COMPEL 02-01991 JSW (EDL)

Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW

Document 109-2

Filed 01/28/2004

Page 28 of 39

1 2 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

aside, put in escrow, or designated for settlement or payment of damages relating to Google's infringement or potential infringement of the `361 patent or any other patent. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 60: Google objects to this request to the extent that it calls for documents protected by the attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Google responds that it will produce non-privileged documents within its possession that are responsive to this request. WHY OVERTURE IS ENTITLED TO THE REQUESTED DISCOVERY: Documents relating to money set aside for settlement or damages payments for patent infringement are relevant to the damages to which Overture is entitled by this lawsuit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The discovery requested is proportional to the importance of the damages issue to the case and Overture's need for the information to prepare its damages case and analysis, is not unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, and cannot be found from a source other than Google without substantial difficulty, if at all. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2). Overture hereby incorporates by reference its discussion of the lack of justification for further delay regarding Request No. 26. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 61: All documents relating to any comments, statements, or representations made by Google, or any other person, about the features, performance, advantages, or disadvantages of Google's sponsored Search System or Overture's Sponsored Search System or any comparisons between Google's Sponsored Search System and Overture's Sponsored Search System. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 61: Google objects to this request on the ground that the terms "Google's Sponsored Search System" and "Overture's Sponsored Search System" are vague, ambiguous and compound; and render the request overbroad and unduly burdensome. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Google responds that it will produce documents 27
APPENDIX A TO OVERTURE'S MOT. TO COMPEL 02-01991 JSW (EDL)

Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW

Document 109-2

Filed 01/28/2004

Page 29 of 39

1 2 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

within its possession that are responsive to this request. WHY OVERTURE IS ENTITLED TO THE REQUESTED DISCOVERY: Documents relating to comments and the like about the features, advantages and disadvantages of the accused system or Overture's system are relevant to the damages to which Overture is entitled by this lawsuit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The discovery requested is proportional to the importance of the damages issue to the case and Overture's need for the information to prepare its damages case and analysis, is not unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, and cannot be found from a source other than Google without substantial difficulty, if at all. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2). Overture hereby incorporates by reference its discussion of the lack of justification for further delay regarding Request No. 26. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 62: All documents relating to any efforts made by Google, or anyone acting on its behalf, to solicit, convince, or persuade any of Overture's customers, affiliates, or advertisers to advertise on Google's website. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 62: Google objects to this request on the ground that it is overboard and unduly burdensome, and to the extent that it seeks documents not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery or admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Google responds that it will produce documents within its possession that are responsive to this request. WHY OVERTURE IS ENTITLED TO THE REQUESTED DISCOVERY: Documents relating to efforts to promote advertising on Google's website are relevant to the damages to which Overture is entitled by this lawsuit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The discovery requested is proportional to the importance of the damages issue to the case and Overture's need for the information to prepare its damages case and analysis, is not unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, and cannot be found from a source other than Google without substantial difficulty, if at all. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2). 28
APPENDIX A TO OVERTURE'S MOT. TO COMPEL 02-01991 JSW (EDL)

Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW

Document 109-2

Filed 01/28/2004

Page 30 of 39

1 2 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

Overture hereby incorporates by reference its discussion of the lack of justification for further delay regarding Request No. 26. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 63: All documents relating to communications, letters, emails, comments, statements, or representations made by Google that were directed to any of Overture's customers or advertisers. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 63: Google objects to this request on the ground that it is overboard and unduly burdensome, and to the extent that it seeks documents not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery or admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Google responds that it will produce documents within its possession that are responsive to this request. WHY OVERTURE IS ENTITLED TO THE REQUESTED DISCOVERY: There is no question that Google's statements to Overture's customers or advertisers are relevant to the damages to which Overture is entitled by this lawsuit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The discovery requested is proportional to the importance of the damages issue to the case and Overture's need for the information to prepare its damages case and analysis, is not unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, and cannot be found from a source other than Google without substantial difficulty, if at all. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2). Overture hereby incorporates by reference its discussion of the lack of justification for further delay regarding Request No. 26. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 64: All doc