Twitter, Inc. v. Skootle Corp. et al

Filing 65

Statement Joint Statement Regarding Discovery Issues by Twitter, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6)(Graves, Charles) (Filed on 10/26/2012)

Exhibit 1

1
2
3
4
5
6

COLT / WALLERSTEIN LLP
Doug Colt (Bar No. 210915)
[e-mail]
Thomas E. Wallerstein (Bar No. 232086)
[e-mail]
Nicole M. Norris (Bar No. 222785)
[e-mail]
Shorebreeze II
255 Shoreline Drive, Suite 540
Redwood Shores, California 94065
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]

7
8

Attorneys for Skootle Corp. and James Kester

9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

13
14

TWITTER, INC., a Delaware corporation,

CASE NO. 3:12-CV-1721 SI
SKOOTLE CORP.’S RESPONSES AND
OBJECTIONS TO TWITTER’S
INTERROGATORIES [SET ONE]

15

Plaintiff,

16

v.

17

SKOOTLE, CORP., a Tennessee corporation;
and JAMES KESTER, an individual

18

Filing Date:
Trial Date:

April 5, 2012
NONE SET

Defendants.
19
20
21
22

PROPOUNDING PARTY:

TWITTER, INC.

23

RESPONDING PARTY:

SKOOTLE CORP.

24

SET NUMBER:

ONE (1)

25
26
27
28
SKOOTLE CORP.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO TWITTER’S INTERROGATORIES [SET ONE]
CASE NO. 3:12-CV-1721 SI

1
2

Defendant Skootle Corp. (“Skootle”) hereby responds and objects to Plaintiff Twitter, Inc.’s
(“Twitter”) Interrogatories, Set Number One, as follows:

3
4
5
6

GENERAL OBJECTIONS
Each of Skootle’s responses herein, in addition to any specifically stated objections, is subject
to and incorporates the following general objections:
1.

Skootle objects to each of the interrogatories and the definitions to the extent they

7

purport to impose obligations greater or more extensive than those required by the Federal Rules of

8

Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of the United States District Court – Northern District of California,

9

or other applicable law.

10
11
12

2.

Skootle objects to each of the interrogatories and definitions to the extent they purport

to impose a burden of producing documents that cannot be found in the course of a reasonable search.
3.

Skootle objects to each of the interrogatories to the extent it seeks information that is

13

neither relevant to any claim or defense raised in this litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to

14

the discovery of admissible evidence.

15

4.

Skootle objects to each of the interrogatories to the extent it is unreasonably

16

cumulative or duplicative of other discovery requests, or seeks documents that are obtainable from

17

some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.

18
19
20

5.

Skootle objects to each of the interrogatories to the extent it is overbroad, harassing,

oppressive, or unduly burdensome.
6.

Skootle objects to each of the interrogatories to the extent it seeks information for

21

which the burden or expense of obtaining and disclosing outweighs its likely benefit in resolving the

22

issues of this action.

23
24
25

7.

Skootle objects to each of the interrogatories to the extent it fails to describe with

reasonable particularity the information requested.
8.

Skootle objects to each of the interrogatories to the extent it seeks information that is

26

protected from production by the attorney-client privilege, work product immunity, and/or any other

27

privilege, immunity, or exemption.

28

9.

Skootle objects to each of the interrogatories to the extent it is vague or ambiguous.

-1SKOOTLE’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO TWITTER’S INTERROGATORIES [SET ONE]
CASE NUMBER 3:12-CV-1721 SI

1
2
3
4
5

10.

Skootle objects to each of the interrogatories to the extent it seeks information that is

subject to confidentiality agreements with third parties.
11.

Skootle objects to each of the interrogatories to the extent it seeks information not in

Skootle’s possession, custody, or control.
12.

Skootle objects to each of the interrogatories on the grounds that discovery is

6

continuing in this action and Skootle has not completed its factual investigation. Accordingly,

7

without asserting an obligation to do so, and without waiving its objections, Skootle reserves the right

8

to amend and/or supplement its responses if and when additional facts or documents are discovered.

9

Additionally, as Skootle’s responses are based on facts and documents that Skootle has identified to

10

date, they do not preclude Skootle from later relying on facts or documents discovered or generated

11

pursuant to subsequent investigation or discovery.

12

13.

Skootle’s responses are made without prejudice to its right to subsequently add to,

13

modify, or otherwise change or amend these responses and objections. Furthermore, Skootle

14

specifically reserves the right to (i) introduce at trial other information, documents, or things that it

15

may discover or upon which it may come to rely; (ii) revise, correct, supplement, or clarify any of its

16

written responses at any time; and (iii) use at trial information, documents, or things that he may later

17

determine to have been responsive to the requests.
RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES

18
19
20

INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
Identify each and every date on which Skootle or any of its owners, executives, directors,

21

managers, officers or employees created a Twitter account.

22

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1:

23

In addition to the foregoing general objections, which are expressly incorporated herein,

24

Skootle objects to this request on the grounds and to the extent that it (1) seeks information outside

25

Skootle’s possession, custody or control; and (2) seeks information irrelevant to the claims and

26

defenses at issue in this action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

27

evidence.

28
-2SKOOTLE’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO TWITTER’S INTERROGATORIES [SET ONE]
CASE NUMBER 3:12-CV-1721 SI

1

Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing general and specific objections, Skootle,

2

responding with respect to itself alone as it relates to the TweetAdder software responds as follows:

3

Skootle opened a Twitter account on or about April or May 2009.

4

INTERROGATORY NO. 2:

5

Identify, by user name preceded by the @ symbol, each and every Twitter account opened by,

6

for, or on behalf of, or at the direction of Skootle or any of its owners, executives, directors,

7

managers, officers or employees.

8

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2:

9

In addition to the foregoing general objections, which are expressly incorporated herein,

10

Skootle objects to this request on the grounds and to the extent that it (1) is overbroad and unduly

11

burdensome; (2) seeks information outside Skootle’s possession, custody or control; and (3) seeks

12

information irrelevant to the claims and defenses at issue in this action and is not reasonably

13

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

14

Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing general and specific objections, Skootle,

15

responding with respect to itself alone as it relates to the TweetAdder software responds as follows:

16

@tweetadder.

17

INTERROGATORY NO. 3:

18

Identify, by name, each and every current and former full-time, part-time, or temporary

19

employee, independent contractor, consultant, executive, manager, officer, owner, and/or member of

20

the board of directors of Skootle.

21

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3:

22

In addition to the foregoing general objections, which are expressly incorporated herein,

23

Skootle objects to this request on the grounds and to the extent that it (1) seeks information irrelevant

24

to the claims and defenses at issue in this action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the

25

discovery of admissible evidence.

26
27

Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing general and specific objections, Skootle
responds as follows: James Kester, Troy Fales, Amanda Kester, Rachel Dessart Jones, Robert Jung.

28
-3SKOOTLE’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO TWITTER’S INTERROGATORIES [SET ONE]
CASE NUMBER 3:12-CV-1721 SI

1
2

INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
Identify the material terms and effective date of each and every version of the Twitter Terms

3

of Service to which Skootle contends it agreed.

4

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4:

5

In addition to the foregoing general objections, which are expressly incorporated herein,

6

Skootle objects to this request on the grounds and to the extent that it (1) assumes Skootle contends it

7

agreed to any version of the Twitter Terms of Service; (2) is vague and ambiguous as to the definition

8

of the terms “material terms” and “effective date;” and (3) calls for a legal conclusion.

9

Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing general and specific objections, Skootle

10

responds as follows: Skootle opened a Twitter account on or about April or May 2009 and agreed to

11

any terms of service in place at that time.

12

INTERROGATORY NO. 5:

13

Identify, with precision and specificity, the name, version number, and release date of each

14

and every version of the TweetAdder software ever marketed, sold, licensed, leased, distributed,

15

disseminated, or offered for sale, license, lease, distribution, or dissemination.

16

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5:

17

In addition to the foregoing general objections, which are expressly incorporated herein,

18

Skootle objects to this request on the grounds and to the extent that it is vague and ambiguous as to

19

the definition of the term “precision and specificity.”

20

Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing general objections, Skootle responds as

21

follows: There are no names, version numbers, or release dates for any version of the TweetAdder

22

software. Any changes to the TweetAdder software are made directly to the source code. Skootle

23

does not keep records of when or what changes are made to the TweetAdder software.

24

INTERROGATORY NO. 6:

25

Identify with precision and specificity the means by which the TweetAdder software is

26

designed to access the Twitter service, including whether or not such means make use of Twitter’s

27

Application Programming Interface and OAuth authentication protocol.

28
-4SKOOTLE’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO TWITTER’S INTERROGATORIES [SET ONE]
CASE NUMBER 3:12-CV-1721 SI

1
2

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
In addition to the foregoing general objections, which are expressly incorporated herein,

3

Skootle objects to this request on the grounds and to the extent that it (1) is vague and ambiguous as

4

to the definition of the term “precision and specificity;” and (2) seeks information not in Skootle’s

5

possession, custody, or control.

6

Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing general and specific objections, Skootle

7

responds as follows: Skootle is without sufficient knowledge or information to respond to this

8

interrogatory at this time. Skootle reserves his right to modify or amend this response as his

9

investigation continues.

10
11

INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
Identify, with precision and specificity, the first date on which James Kester visited

12

twitter.com

13

INTERROGATORY NO. 7:

14

In addition to the foregoing general objections, which are expressly incorporated herein,

15

Skootle objects to this request on the grounds and to the extent that it (1) is vague and ambiguous as

16

to the definition of the term “precision and specificity;” (2) seeks information irrelevant to the claims

17

and defenses in this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

18

evidence; and (3) seeks information outside Skootle’s possession, custody, or control.

19

Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing general and specific objections, Skootle

20

responds as follows: On or before March 2009.

21

INTERROGATORY NO. 8:

22

Identify every person who planned, programmed, contributed code to, or otherwise developed

23

the software for any version of the TweetAdder software.

24

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8:

25

In addition to the foregoing general objections, which are expressly incorporated herein,

26

Skootle objects to this request on the grounds and to the extent that it is vague and ambiguous as to

27

the definition of the term “planned.”

28
-5SKOOTLE’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO TWITTER’S INTERROGATORIES [SET ONE]
CASE NUMBER 3:12-CV-1721 SI

1

Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing general and specific objections, Skootle

2

responds as follows: James Kester and Troy Fales.

3

INTERROGATORY NO. 9:

4

Identify, with precision and specificity, the date on which the “scheduled Tweets” feature of

5

the TweetAdder software was first included in any version of the TweetAdder software.

6

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9:

7

In addition to the foregoing general objections, which are expressly incorporated herein,

8

Skootle objects to this request on the grounds and to the extent that it (1) is vague and ambiguous as

9

to the definition of the term “precision and specificity;” and (2) seeks information irrelevant to the

10

claims and defenses in this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

11

admissible evidence.

12

Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing general and specific objections, Skootle

13

responds as follows: The “scheduled Tweets” feature has always been a part of the TweetAdder

14

software beginning with its release on or about May 28, 2009.

15

INTERROGATORY NO. 10:

16

Identify, with precision and specificity, the date on which the “automatic follow back” feature

17

of the TweetAdder software was first included in any version of the TweetAdder software.

18

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10:

19

In addition to the foregoing general objections, which are expressly incorporated herein,

20

Skootle objects to this request on the grounds and to the extent that it (1) is vague and ambiguous as

21

to the definition of the term “precision and specificity;” and (2) seeks information irrelevant to the

22

claims and defenses in this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

23

admissible evidence.

24

Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing general and specific objections, Skootle

25

responds as follows: The “automatic follow back” feature has always been a part of the TweetAdder

26

software beginning with its release on or about May 28, 2009.

27
28
-6SKOOTLE’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO TWITTER’S INTERROGATORIES [SET ONE]
CASE NUMBER 3:12-CV-1721 SI

1
2

INTERROGATORY NO. 11:
Identify, with precision and specificity, the date on which the “automatic un-follow” feature

3

of the TweetAdder software was first included in any version of the TweetAdder software.

4

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 11:

5

In addition to the foregoing general objections, which are expressly incorporated herein,

6

Skootle objects to this request on the grounds and to the extent that it (1) is vague and ambiguous as

7

to the definition of the term “precision and specificity;” and (2) seeks information irrelevant to the

8

claims and defenses in this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

9

admissible evidence.

10

Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing general and specific objections, Skootle

11

responds as follows: The “automatic un-follow” feature has always been a part of the TweetAdder

12

software beginning with its release on or about May 28, 2009.

13
14

Date: September 14, 2012

COLT / WALLERSTEIN LLP

15
16
17
18

By:_____ __________________________
Doug Colt
Thomas E. Wallerstein
Nicole M. Norris
Attorneys for Skootle Corp. and James Kester

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-7SKOOTLE’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO TWITTER’S INTERROGATORIES [SET ONE]
CASE NUMBER 3:12-CV-1721 SI