Overture Services, Inc. v. Google Inc.

Filing 71

MOTION to Expedite Briefing and Hearing Schedule for Overture's Motion for a Protective Order filed by Overture Services, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order # 2 Affidavit of Charles M. McMahon in Support of Motion to Shorten Briefing and Hearing Schedule)(McMahon, Charles)

Overture Services, Inc. v. Google Inc.

Doc. 71

Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW

Document 71

Filed 08/04/2003

Page 1 of 3

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

LATHAM & WATKINS Anthony I. Fenwick (Bar No. 158667) Allon Stabinsky (Bar No. 197642) 135 Commonwealth Drive Menlo Park, California 94025 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE Jack C. Berenzweig (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) William H. Frankel (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) Jason C. White (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) Charles M. McMahon (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) 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., a Delaware Corporation, Plaintiff, vs. GOOGLE INC., a California Corporation, Defendant. No. C02-01991 JSW (EDL) OVERTURE'S MOTION TO SHORTEN THE BRIEFING AND HEARING SCHEDULE PURSUANT TO CIVIL LOCAL RULE 6-3 DISCOVERY MATTER Date: Time: Courtroom: Judge: N/A (Civil L.R. 6-3) N/A E, 15th Floor Hon. Elizabeth D. Laporte

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW

Document 71

Filed 08/04/2003

Page 2 of 3

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'S MOTION TO SHORTEN SCHEDULE PURSUANT TO CIVIL LOCAL RULE 6-3 C 02-01991 JSW

MOTION Plaintiff Overture Services, Inc. ("Overture") hereby moves, pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-1 and 6-3, and paragraph 3 of the Honorable Elizabeth D. Laporte's Standing Order, for an order shortening the briefing and hearing schedule for Overture's Motion for a Protective Order Preventing Excessive Third Party Discovery, filed concurrently herewith. Counsel for Google has informed counsel for Overture that Google does not oppose this Motion to Shorten the Briefing and Hearing Schedule. Pursuant to Civil L.R. 6-3(d), there will be no hearing on Overture's motion unless the Court schedules a hearing. Paragraphs 2-10 of the concurrently filed Declaration of Charles M. McMahon ("McMahon Decl.") set forth the information required by Civil L.R. 6-3(a). Google has expressed its intent to serve approximately three hundred (300) subpoenas on third parties in connection with this case. Google already has served seventy-one (71) of these subpoenas, and plans to serve the remaining 200+ subpoenas in the near future. Such a large number of third party subpoenas is unreasonable and excessive, and Overture filed its Motion for a Protective Order to stop Google's abuse of third party discovery. Overture seeks to shorten the briefing and hearing schedule for its Motion for a Protective Order because under the normal schedule, the motion is likely to become at least partly moot before it is heard by the Court. Under the normal discovery motion briefing schedule, the Court would not hear Overture's Motion for a Protective Order until at least 35 days from now. In that time, Overture expects that Google will serve another round or two of subpoenas on third parties, potentially rendering Overture's Motion for a Protective Order moot with respect to those subpoenas. Even since July 23, 2003, when I met and conferred with Ms. Sun pursuant to Civil L.R. 37-1(a), Google served another three subpoenas on third parties.
BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE NBC Tower ­ Suite 3600 455 North Cityfront Plaza Drive Chicago, Illinois 60611-5599 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone]

-2-

Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW

Document 71

Filed 08/04/2003

Page 3 of 3

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

In addition, many of the subpoenas that Google already served are still pending. The sooner the Court resolves this dispute between the parties, the more likely it will be at least some of the third parties served with these subpoenas will be spared the difficulty of responding to Google's excessive third party discovery. Accordingly, Overture requests that the Court shorten the briefing and hearing schedule from 35 days to 14 days. Overture proposes that Google's opposition to Overture's Motion for a Protective Order be filed no later than August 11, 2003, which is seven (7) days after the motion filing date. Overture requests that the Court hear Overture's Motion for a Protective Order on August 19, 2003, which is fifteen (15) days after the motion filing date. If the Court grants this motion to shorten the briefing and hearing schedule, Overture will forego its right to file a reply brief. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, and for the reasons set forth in Overture's Motion for a Protective Order, Overture moves the Court to shorten the briefing and hearing schedule for its Motion for a Protective Order. A proposed order is filed concurrently herewith. .

Dated: August 4, 2003

By:

s/Charles M. McMahon Charles M. McMahon BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE Attorneys for Plaintiff OVERTURE SERVICES, INC.

OVERTURE'S MOTION TO SHORTEN SCHEDULE PURSUANT TO CIVIL LOCAL RULE 6-3 C 02-01991 JSW

-3-

BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE NBC Tower ­ Suite 3600 455 North Cityfront Plaza Drive Chicago, Illinois 60611-5599 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone]