Overture Services, Inc. v. Google Inc.

Filing 188

Declaration of Christine P. Sun in Support of 183 Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Testimony Re Prosecution of '361 Patent [Supplemental Declaration] filed by Google Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E)(Related document(s) 183 ) (Sun, Christine) (Filed on 7/7/2004)

Overture Services, Inc. v. Google Inc.

Doc. 188 Att. 2

Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW

Document 188-3

Filed 07/07/2004

Page 1 of 3

EXHIBIT B

Dockets.Justia.com

NOV~05-2~03 3:02-cv-01991-JSW I CAGO BHGL CH Document 188-3 Case 17: 58

31 Filed 07/07/2004 2 321 4299 of 3 02/03 Page 2

BRINKS
Charles M. McMahon
3U'32l-4782
cmcma.h I'In~brin kshofer. c om

HOFER GilSON
&lIONE
A f'ROffi51Q~ CoRPORAT1oN

November 5 2003

IImWI;TUA1. PROPEKIY ATTORNEYS

NO' "rOWiR . Svno
CHICAGO, ILUNOl5

3600

455 N- CI1YFRONT I'IAZA tlRlVJ;

60611-5599

www_ brinkshofar_ com

FA)( 312-321- 4299

via facsimile and first class mail

TELEPHONE 312- 321-

4200

SAN JOSE, CA
INDIANAPOUS, IN

Christine P. Sun, Esq. KEKER & VAN NEST, L. 710 Sansome Street San Francisco, CA 94111- 1704
Re:

ANK ARBOR, MI
AAl.INI;71;IN, VA

Overture Services, Inc. v. Google Inc. Civ. No. CO2-01991 (N.D. CaL)

Dear Christine:

I write in response to your letter of October 31, 2003 , regarding Google s request for production of Overture s privileged documents. For the reasons set forth below, we disagree that Goog1e is entitled to production of privileged documents.
With respect to Google s contention regarding waiver, we disagree that the cited deposition testimony rises to the level of waiving the attorney-client privilege with respect to any of the documents listed on Overture s privilege log. See Libbey Glass, Inc. v. Oneida. Ltd 197 F.RD. 342 , 346- 47 (N. D. Ohio 1999). Please explain how the cited testimony demonstrates waiver of any privilege.

We also disagree with Google s contention regarding the crime- fraud exception. To establish that the crime-fraud exception applies to any particular communication, Google must demonstrate aprimafacie case of fraud, including: (1) a representation of material fact; (2) the falsity of that representation; (3) the intent to deceive; (4) a justifiable reliance upon the misrepresentation by the party deceived; and (5) injury to the party deceived as a result of reliance on the misrepresentation. See In re Spalding Sports Worldwide, Inc. 203 F 3d 800 807 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Google has not specifically identified a single allegedly false communication , much less provided prima facie evidence that the statement is in fact false. Moreover, Goog1e has not identified any evidence of intent to deceive. Without providing at least some evidence on these issues, Goog1e cannot establish aprimafacie case of fraud. Please explain the basis for Google s allegations.

. Ndv-~:5-2003 3:02-cv-01991-JSW I CAGO BHGL CH Document Case 17: 58

188-3

31 Filed 07/07/2004 2 321 4299 of 3 03/03 Page 3

Christine P. Sun, Esq.
November 5 , 2003
Page 2

I expect that Jason White and/or Jack Berenzweig will be involved in any telephone call to meet-and-confer regarding these issues, but neither Jason nor Jack are available on the dates you specified. We request that you address the questions posed above regarding Google s contentions prior to any meet.and-confer. We expect that Google s W'gency to resolve this issue has subsided now that the mediation has been rescheduled for January.
Best regards

Charles M. McMahon

W---

TnT AI P - PI:'\