Faith Center Church Evengelist Ministries et al v. Glover et al

Filing 78

USCA JUDGMENT as to 65 Notice of Appeal. On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered and adjudged by this Court, that the judgment of the said District Court in this cause be, and hereby is REVERSED in part, VACATED in part and REMANDED.(hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/10/2007)

Faith Center Church Evengelist Ministries et al v. Glover et al

Doc. 78

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

DAVID T. BIDERMAN, Bar No. 101577 JUDITH B. GITTERMAN, Bar No. 115661 M. CHRISTOPHER JHANG, Bar No. 211463 PERKINS COIE LLP 180 Townsend Street, 3rd Floor San Francisco, CA 94107-1909 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Email: [e-mail] Email: [e-mail] Email: [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendant Google Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION

CLRB HANSON INDUSTRIES, LLC d/b/a INDUSTRIAL PRINTING, and HOWARD STERN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. C O5-03649 JW DECLARATION OF M. CHRISTOPHER JHANG IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT GOOGLE INC.'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME

15 v. 16 GOOGLE, INC., 17 Defendant. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

DECLARATION OF M. CHRISTOPHER JHANG IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT GOOGLE INC.'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME CASE NO. 05-03649

[41063-0023/BY062230.087]

Dockets.Justia.com

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

I, M. Christopher Jhang, declare as follows: 1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law in all of the courts of the State of

California and this Court, and am an attorney with the law firm of Perkins Coie LLP, attorneys of record herein for defendant Google Inc. ("Google"). I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth below except as to those matters stated on information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true. If called upon to testify, I could and would testify competently as to the matters set forth therein. 2. Pursuant to an agreement between the parties, the deposition of plaintiff Howard

Stern is scheduled to occur on August 16, 2006, at 11:00 a.m., in New York, and the deposition of Brett Hanson, the representative for plaintiff CLRB Hanson Industries, is scheduled to occur on August 18, 2006, at 9:30 a.m., in New York. 3. On August 2, 2006, I responded to an email from plaintiffs' counsel, Michele

Raphael, claiming that Google had not complied with paragraph 2 of the Court's June 27, 2006 Order Following Case Management Conference ("Order"), which provides that Google shall submit a sworn statement that it has turned over all documents describing the terms and conditions of the AdWords agreement. I informed Ms. Raphael that Google has satisfied this requirement through the filing of its declaration, its amended declaration, and its production of documents to plaintiffs. I further informed Mr. Raphael that Google has produced all documents called for under the Order and that it has satisfied its document production obligations. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of this email exchange. 4. I am informed and believe that, immediately following the issuance of the Order,

Google searched its archives and retrieved all versions of the AdWords Frequently Asked Questions ("FAQs"), from July 2002 to present, which appeared on the AdWords website, in order to provide a thorough and responsive document production to plaintiffs. 5. On August 3, 2006, I received an email from Ms. Raphael stating, among other

things, that plaintiffs were going to seek a continuance of the partial summary judgment hearing date. There was no statement in this email of when plaintiffs intended to file their motion to
-2DECLARATION OF M. CHRISTOPHER JHANG IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT GOOGLE INC.'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME CASE NO. 05-03649

[41063-0023/BY062230.087]

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

enlarge time. On the following day, August 4, 2006, I informed Ms. Raphael by email that the lead attorney for Google was out of the country and on a plane, and that I would respond to her email "early next week." Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of this email exchange. 6. On the following Tuesday, August 8, 2006, plaintiffs filed their motion before I

had responded to Ms. Raphael's email and without making any attempt to obtain a stipulation with Google for their requested time change. On that same day, I sent Ms. Raphael an email informing her that Google would have stipulated to the continuance of the hearing date and I requested that plaintiffs withdraw their motion and prepare a stipulation and proposed order to file with the Court in its place. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of my August 8, 2006 email to Ms. Raphael. 7. On August 9, 2006, I received an email response from Ms. Raphael wherein she

refused to withdraw plaintiffs' motion and indicated that plaintiffs would enter into a stipulation only if it included plaintiffs' discovery complaints and matters that were either previously decided by this Court or unrelated to plaintiffs' continuance request. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of Ms. Raphael's August 9, 2006 email. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and the United States that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 11th day of August, 2006, at San Francisco, California. ________________/S/____________________ M. Christopher Jhang

-3DECLARATION OF M. CHRISTOPHER JHANG IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT GOOGLE INC.'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME CASE NO. 05-03649

[41063-0023/BY062230.087]