Netflix, Inc. v. Blockbuster, Inc.

Filing 155

Attachment 8
Declaration Of Eugene M. Paige In Support Of Netflix's Motion To Compel The Production Of Documents From Blockbuster, Inc. filed byNetflix, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B1# 3 Exhibit B2# 4 Exhibit B3# 5 Exhibit C# 6 Exhibit D# 7 Exhibit E# 8 Exhibit F# 9 Exhibit G# 10 Exhibit H# 11 Exhibit I# 12 Exhibit J# 13 Exhibit K# 14 Exhibit L# 15 Exhibit M)(Paige, Eugene) (Filed on 3/2/2007)

Download PDF
Netflix, Inc. v. Blockbuster, Inc. Doc. 155 Att. 8 Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA Document 155-9 Filed 03/02/2007 Page 1 of 3 EXHIBIT F Dockets.Justia.com Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA Document 155-9 LAW OFFICES Filed 03/02/2007 Page 2 of 3 KEKER & VAN NEST LLP 710 SANSOME STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-1704 TELEPHONE (415) 391-5400 FAX (415) 397-7188 WWW.KVN.COM EUGENE M. PAIGE EPAIGECßKVN.COM January 18, 2007 VIA FACSIMILE Wiliam J. O'Brien, Esq. Alschuler Grossman LLP 1620 26th Street, 4th Floor, North Tower Santa Monica, CA 90404-4060 Re: Netfix, Inc. v. Blockbuster, Inc., Case No. C-06-2361 WHA Dear Bil: I write to follow up on several discovery issues. Blockbuster's Continued Failure to Provide Search Information. At our meet and . confer in early December, Blockbuster agreed to provide Netflix with the description ofthe search it had undertaken that is required by paragraph 140f Judge Alsup's Supplemental CMC Order. It is now over a month later, and Netfix has yet to receive that required information. Please produce the information required by Judge Alsup's Supplemental CMC Order no later than next Friday, Januar 26. Blockbuster Has Failed To Furnish Custodian Information. Blockbuster furnished Netflx with a spreadsheet showing the custodians for each of required by Judge Alsup's order) in conjunction with its production of the documents it produced (as also November 28,2006. However, Blockbuster failed to provide similar custodian information in connection with its December 22,2006 production of documents. Please provide Netflix with that custodian information immediately. Blockbuster's Use of Undisclosed Prior Art. Third, Blockbuster's presentation to the Cour yesterday made reference to a "Video Connection" reference purortedly dating from May of 1981. I have not been able to locate any such reference in Blockbuster's invalidity contentions. Please confirm where this piece of purported prior art is to be found in Blockbuster's invalidity contentions and production. Status of Discoverv Stipulation. Finally, as we discussed following yesterday's hearng, please provide me with Blockbuster's proposed revision to the stipulation that we have 388203.01 Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA William J. O'Brien, Esq. Januar 18, 2007 Page 2 Document 155-9 Filed 03/02/2007 Page 3 of 3 been attempting to complete for the past several weeks. It has now been nearly a week since Netflx sent its proposed revisions, and receiving a counterproposal from Blockbuster promptly wil maximize the parties' chances of being able to reach a negotiated agreement on terms rather than having to resort to briefing before Judge Spero this coming Wednesday. It should go without saying that I remain available to discuss any issues that Blockbuster may have with Netflx's proposed revisions telephonically as well. Than you for your attention to these matters, and please do not hesitate to contact me should you wish to discuss them fuher. Sincerely, Eugene M. Paige ~(! 388203.01

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?