Intermec Technologies Corp. v. Palm, Inc.

Filing 26

EXHIBITS re 15 Response ( Non Motion ) Exh K filed byGoogle Inc.. (Related document(s) 15 ) (Kobialka, Lisa) (Filed on 5/29/2009)

Intermec Technologies Corp. v. Palm, Inc.

Doc. 26

Case3:09-mc-80097-WHA Document26

Filed05/29/09 Page1 of 3

EXHIBIT K

Dockets.Justia.com

Case3:09-mc-80097-WHA Document26

Filed05/29/09 Page2 of 3

From: To: Cc: Subject: Date:

Hansen, Jeffrey M. Weingaertner, Scott Becker, David S. RE: Our Call re Intermec Subpoena of Google Thursday, May 07, 2009 7:57:54 PM

Scott: This morning I promised you a response to your latest offer of discovery on a single Google application prior to our filing of a motion to compel against Google. I am writing to let you know that, after spending the day considering your offer, we cannot accept it and will be filing our motion to compel against Google as soon as possible. We are compelled to take this action given the scheduling situation in which we find ourselves given the two months of negotiations we have undertaken in good faith with Google and our upcoming discovery deadline, and to ensure we receive the reasonable discovery to which we are entitled. We are still willing to discuss a resolution of our differences regarding Intermec's subpoena to Google and welcome any conversations you would like to have on that topic. Also, yes, we will be filing our motion to compel in the Northern District of California as we reissued our subpoena out of that district at Google's request and on its assurance that it is the district where the relevant documents are located. Thanks, Jeff Hansen -----Original Message----From: Weingaertner, Scott [mailto:[e-mail]] Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 3:28 PM To: Hansen, Jeffrey M. Subject: Our Call re Intermec Subpoena of Google Jeff Thank you for your time today. I write to confirm our discussion intended to resolve our issues, as well as our understanding that we are in an informal mutual standstill on motion practice until we've been in contact again on our issues of scope. Also, thank you for letting us know that, if we go to motion practice, that Intermec will limit Intermec's motion to compel to the Northern District of California. We await your response on the issue of whether Intermec would limit its discovery to a single application. In addition, we would be receptive to limiting discovery scope to the issue of downloads to Palm Devices. Please let me know at your convenience where we stand and when we can complete our discussion. Thank you, Scott ______________________________

Case3:09-mc-80097-WHA Document26

Filed05/29/09 Page3 of 3

Scott T. Weingaertner King & Spalding LLP 1185 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036-4003 Tel. [phone] Fax [phone] Sent from a wireless handheld device ______________________________ Confidentiality Notice This message is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer. It is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged or confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete all copies of the message.