Bradley v. Google, Inc. et al

Filing 19

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Google, Inc., Google AdSense. (Shen, Andrew) (Filed on 11/30/2006)

Download PDF
Bradley v. Google, Inc. et al Doc. 19 Case 3:06-cv-05289-WHA Document 19 Filed 11/30/2006 Page 1 of 7 1 KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP ASHOK RAMANI - #200020 2 ANDREW SHEN - #232499 710 Sansome Street 3 San Francisco, CA 94111-1704 Telephone: (415) 391-5400 4 Facsimile: (415) 397-7188 5 Attorneys for Defendants 6 7 8 GOOGLE, INC., GOOGLE ADSENSE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 11 12 THERESA B. BRADLEY, Psy.D./JD, 13 Case No. C-06-05289- WHA Plaintiff, v. JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT Date: Time: Dept: Judge: 14 November 30, 2006 8:00 a.m. 15 GOOGLE, INC., GOOGLE AD SENSE, Courtroom 9 16 17 18 19 Defendants. The Hon. Wiliam H. Alsup Date Compo Filed: September 12,2006 Trial Date: TBD 20 21 22 23 24 25 ?. 26 27 ?R 1 385306.01 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT CASE NO. C-06-05289-WHA Case 3:06-cv-05289-WHA Document 19 Filed 11/30/2006 Page 2 of 7 1 I. TOPICS IN COURT'S SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER 2 The parties provide the following statements on the subjects that they believe would be 3 designated in Paragraph 2 of the Cour's Supplemental Order ("Order") filed September 14,2006 4 (Document 9 in the Court's file)l: A. Jurisdiction and venue 5 6 This Court has subject-matterjurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. The paries know of no issue regarding personal jurisdiction or venue. B. Claims. defenses. and related proceedin2s 7 8 9 Dr. Bradley's Claims and Defenses: 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 GoogIe's Claims and Defenses: Google has moved to dismiss Dr. Bradley's complaint, with a hearing date presently scheduled for December 21. Thus, Google has not yet answered 24 25 the Complaint; should the Court allow Dr. Bradley to proceed on her Complaint, Google wil answer and evaluate any potential counterclaim(s). 26 27 Related proceedings: There are no "Related Cases" as defined in L.R. 3-l2(a). lGoogle has not received the order from Dr. Bradley, who never received it from the Court. ?R 2 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 385306.01 CASE NO. C-06-05289-WH Case 3:06-cv-05289-WHA Document 19 Filed 11/30/2006 Page 3 of 7 c. 1 Brief summary of proceedin2s to date Dr. Bradley fied her Amended Complaint on September 12, 2006. The parties stipulated 2 3 to extend Google's time to respond until November 16,2006, on which date Google filed its' pending motion to dismiss. During the week of 4 5 November 13, counsel for Google attempted to meet and confer with Dr. Bradley under Federal Rule Civil Procedure 26(f); Dr. Bradley and 6 7 8 counsel for Google succeeded in doing so on November 20,2006. The parties stipulated to extend the time to exchange initial-disclosure documents required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) by 46 days, to January 29, 2007. D. Pendin2 motions 9 10 11 On November 16, 2006, Google fied a motion to dismiss Dr. Bradley's complaint; the motion is set for hearing on December 21. On November 20,2006, Dr. Bradley mailed to the Cour her motion to appear via telephone at the November 30 case-management conference. E. Brief description of major motions before trial 12 13 14 15 Should the Court not grant Google' s pending motion to dismiss, Google intends to move for summary judgment on Dr. Bradley's complaint. Dr. Bradley does not intend to file any motions. F. Additional parties 16 17 18 At this time, neither side expects paries to be added or deleted. G. 19 Expected claim-construction. evidentiary. or class-certification hearin2s This is neither a patent nor class-action case. Short of motions in limine and potential 20 21 discovery disputes, the parties anticipate no evidentiary hearings. H. Compliance with evidence-preservation requirements 22 23 Dr. Bradley believes that Google has destroyed evidence as set forth in the Amended 24 25 Complaint Counts VI, VII, VIII that has interfered with the Plaintiff s burden of proof of communications by electronic mail concernng the allegations set forth Amended Complaint Counts I, II, III, IV, V by destruction of evidence as set forth in the Amended Complaint by interference with private e-Mail account held by the Plaintiff at Google, Inc. known as 26 27 ?R 3 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 385306.01 CASE NO. C-06-05289-WH Case 3:06-cv-05289-WHA Document 19 Filed 11/30/2006 Page 4 of 7 1 tbrava§ by intentional intrusion into the e-Mail account and intentional destrction 2 and/or deletion of all e-Mail communications concernng the Google AdSense account. 3 4 5 I. Stipulated discovery limits Neither Dr. Bradley nor Google believes that this case requires any departure from the Federal Rules. 6 7 8 J. Proposed deadlines and court dates. includin2 a trial date The parties propose the following case schedule: 9 Event Close of fact discovery Close of expert discovery (if any) Date June 1, 2007 10 11 June 29, 2007 July 26, 2007 12 13 Summary judgment fiing deadline Pretrial conference Trial date 21 days prior to trial October 29, 2007 14 15 16 The parties expect the trial to last no more than three Cour days. K. 17 18 Whether a jurv was properly demanded Dr. Bradley has not requested a jury. Google has not yet answered, and has not decided 19 if it will request a jury. 20 21 L. What dama2es and other relief are sou2ht Dr. Bradley's request for damages and other relief is fully set forth in the Amended 22 23 Complaint Counts I through VIII. 24 M. ADR efforts to date and a specifc ADR plan for the case 25 The parties have conferred about ADR procedures and agree that court-ordered mediation 26 is the likely procedure to assist settlement. Dr. Bradley wil request that the Cour order the 27 paries to court-ordered mediation as soon as possible. Google respectfully suggests that the ?R 4 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 385306.01 CASE NO. C-06-05289-WH Case 3:06-cv-05289-WHA Document 19 Filed 11/30/2006 Page 5 of 7 1 Court order the parties to engage in ADR only should the Court not grant Google's motion to dismiss. N. Ma2istrate-Jud2e assi2nment 2 3 4 5 Dr. Bradley failed timely to submit her consent to proceed before a Magistrate Judge, but would be fine to so proceed now. Google is fine with such assignment. o. Service list 6 7 8 For Dr. Bradley: Theresa B. Bradley 4500 Connecticut Avenue NW #309 Washington, DC 20008 Phone 202-537-2969 For Google: Ashok Ramani Andrew Shen 9 10 11 12 13 Keker & Van Nest, LLP 710 Sansome Street San Francisco, CA 94111-5400 Telephone: (415) 391-5400 Facsimile: (415) 397-7188 14 15 Email: axr§ ashen§ Other items in Local Civil Rule 16-10 16 P. 17 18 Except as set fort above, the parties propose that the matters specified in Civil Local Rule 16-10(b) be scheduled in accordance with the Local Rules, the Federal Rules of Civil 19 Procedure, and the Guidelines for Trial and Final Pretrial Conference in civil jury cases before 20 21 the Honorable Wiliam Alsup. II. PROTECTIVE ORDER 22 The paries have conferred, per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f), about the 23 desirability of a protective order. Google doubts that this case would implicate its trade secrets 24 or proprietary information; to the extent that it does, the parties wil try and stipulate to a 25 procedure restricting disclosure of confidential information to outside counsel and third-pary 26 experts who execute an appropriate undertaking. Should the parties fail to reach resolution, 27 Google wil seek the Court's direction. ?R 5 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 385306.01 CASE NO. C-06-05289-WH Case 3:06-cv-05289-WHA Document 19 Filed 11/30/2006 Page 6 of 7 1 Dr. Bradley does not anticipate that this case wil entail any request or invasion of either 2 party's trade secrets of her company, Brava Corporation or of Google, Inc. or Google Adsense. 3 4 5 DATED: November 30, 2006 KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP 6 By /s/ Andrew Shen Ashok Ramani Andrew Shen 7 8 Attorneys for Defendant GOOGLE INC. DATED: November 26,2006 9 10 11 By r hee; 8. 8rad(Original signature CMC fied with Court) 12 13 Dr. Theresa P.Bradley Pro Se Plaintiff 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ?R 6 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 385306.01 CASE NO. C-06-05289-WH Case 3:06-cv-05289-WHA Document 19 Filed 11/30/2006 Page 7 of 7 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 3 4 5 I am employed in the City and County of San Francisco, State of California in the office of a the bar of this cour at whose direction the following service was made. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a pary to the within action. My business address is Keker & Van Nest, LLP, 710 Sansome Street, San Francisco, California 94111. member of On November 30, 2006, I served the following document: 6 7 8 Joint Case Management Conference Statement by regular UNITED STATES MAIL by placing a true and correct copy in a sealed envelope addressed as shown below. I am readily familiar with the practice of Keker & Van Nest, LLP for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing. According to that practice, items are deposited with the United States Postal Service at San Francisco, California on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid. I am aware that, on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if the postal cancellation date or the postage meter date is more than one day after the date of deposit for mailing stated in this affdavit; and by EMAIL, by transmitting a true and correct copy in PDF format to the email address below. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Theresa B. Bradley 4500 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 309 Washington, DC 20008 Email: bravacorp§ Executed on November 30,2006, at San Francisco, California. 16 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is tre 17 18 and correct. 19 .r d w :74: ~ GA Robert W. Thomas 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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?